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
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.
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
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
Lucky for you, you live in Canada or I would have you arrested on making Anti-american (terrorist) statements!!
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.
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
Ashcroft is one of the big proponents of using "material witness" detentions as a way of avoiding habeus corpus. It's not being mentioned in the press because the press would rather not digify that sort of procedural bullshit. They've called it what it is: Detention without due process or habeus corpus. The press have a duty to try to be objective, but that doesn't mean they have to be gullible.
--G
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.
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*
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.
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!
and it will be time for a commercial break on CNN.
No, that's when Fox News cuts to the Operation Iraqi Freedom interstitial. Have you seen this thing? A fighter jet zooms towards you and turns into a fucking eagle. And then it screams.
I get so fired up when I see that, I just want to strangle some dirty foreigner with an American flag. USA RULES!!!!!1
"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...
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 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>
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.
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 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 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