arjan de lumens
Veteran
Is the US constitution going to hell in a handbasket or is The Register being overly sensationalist?
The Register said:
Is this something to be afraid of?
- Thread starter arjan de lumens
- Start date
I vote overly sensationalist because:
A) it's not news anyone wants to hear in a general sense, so it's easy to use the public's underlying fear of authority as leverage in promoting your ideals
B) nobody really knows why he was picked up by the FBI
C) while being careful not to explicity imply that the donation is the reason for his detention, The Register made the entire article focus on that subject, to encourage the reader to come to that conclusion
D) It's The Register
Bottom line is, the court that sealed the warrant thinks there is justification for detention, or it would not have allowed it. My personal guess (and that's all anyone can do about the situation, guess) is that the government thinks he has information, and they want to keep it safely contained, rather than have him start talking about it with family and co-workers after being interviewed ("Hey, the FBI questioned me about X, Y, and Z the other day! I told them Q, R, and P, and I think they were really happy to hear it!").
On a side note, I believe there was an episode of The Practice that dealt with this kind of situation not too long after the 9/11 attack. I love that show.
A) it's not news anyone wants to hear in a general sense, so it's easy to use the public's underlying fear of authority as leverage in promoting your ideals
B) nobody really knows why he was picked up by the FBI
C) while being careful not to explicity imply that the donation is the reason for his detention, The Register made the entire article focus on that subject, to encourage the reader to come to that conclusion
D) It's The Register
Bottom line is, the court that sealed the warrant thinks there is justification for detention, or it would not have allowed it. My personal guess (and that's all anyone can do about the situation, guess) is that the government thinks he has information, and they want to keep it safely contained, rather than have him start talking about it with family and co-workers after being interviewed ("Hey, the FBI questioned me about X, Y, and Z the other day! I told them Q, R, and P, and I think they were really happy to hear it!").
On a side note, I believe there was an episode of The Practice that dealt with this kind of situation not too long after the 9/11 attack. I love that show.
Crusher said:
I used to love that show. Then it jumped the shark when everybody had to go to jail for murder. (or several members of the team ended up on trial in several story arcs).
Crusher said:
Would never guess he tried to enter Afghanistan to fight the US if you listen to Natoma and his liberal buddies at the ALCU - not that this is surprising...
Why do I get the impression that if this guy wanted to kill *blacks* or *homosexuals* instead of *Americans* due to his beliefs, Natoma would be the first to send this guy to the chair...
I mean, shit, the man only wanted to kill Americans... let him go, maybe he'll take care of these ALCU guys for us.
Vince said:
Its the detainment on undisclosed charges that worries me. Its almost against the Magna Carta let alone 'modern' laws, if it wasn't fair 800 years ago when fair including burning people for not praying to the right god, you have to ask if it should be allowed today.
Magna Carta 1215
"
No bailiff for the future shall, upon his own unsupported complaint, put any one to his "law, " without credible witnesses brought for this purpose.
No freeman shall be taken or imprisoned or disseised or exiled or in anyway destroyed, nor will we go upon him nor send upon him, except by the lawful judgment of his peers or by the law of the land.
"
Detained him if you want, but he should have "lawful judgement of his peers", every American is his peer (not a select few), so concealed detainment is wrong.
DeanoC said:
"Judgement of his peers" does not imply ALL of his peers anymore than it implies a select few of them, so I don't know what interpretive logic you're using there. And it also says "or by the law of the land", and last time I checked, by the law of this land (the U.S.A.), you are forbidden to even attempt to assist people in attacking the U.S. military, as well as lend aid to, or defend, terrorist organizations.
And the FBI can't seal his case on their own, only the Judge can grant that, which as I said originally, means the Judge who sealed the documents believes it's justified to do so. This is why we have a judicial branch that is separate from the executive and legislative branches.
Crusher said:
I know that, its only "almost against" the Magna Carta, sure it may be o.k. legally (by Magna Carta terms, of course the Magna Carta isn't legal anywhere, its been repealed in England, twice) but its against the spirit of the whole thing.
"Judgement by his peers" means those of an equal status, executive and legislative branchs of government would not be considered equal status under the original meaning of the statement.
Its not my country, so by all means detain without disclosure but I can't say I like the sound of it. However you argue it, it goes against the original idea in English common law (which is the unwritten basis of the Magna Carta), the actual Magna Carta and the U.S. constitution. You may feel that losing that right at the moment is o.k., which is fine, every country gets to define its freedom's and rights. But personally I wouldn't want to give one of the oldest, most basic human rights away.
Crusher said:
Well that's certainly news. Since it's apparent that he lied about his visits, and he was trying to get into afghanistan, that most certainly becomes much more than mere coincidence considering his prior donations to those islamic charities that had ties to terrorism.
Vince said:
Dude, grow up.
When this story first broke, this man was being held *solely* as a "material witness." I didn't question his guilt or innocence. I questioned the government holding him without *charging* him with a crime.
There is a huge difference.
The article Crusher linked to *does* show a reason for holding him and charging him with a crime of conspiracy to commit acts of terrorism against this country. Holding someone indefinitely, since March, without giving proof, but merely stating that someone is a "material witness" is completely different. Especially given the fact that under the Patriot Act, one can be held as a "material witness" or an "enemy combatant" without the government actually charging them with a crime.
*That* is what "me and my ACLU buddies" are railing against. Not people who actually *commit* crimes being tossed away and locked up.
Natoma said:
So, should the government have let him go? In the Quantum age of digital communication and nuclear weapons, do you really want terrorist sympothizers living in American cities?
The government didn't just pick this guy up for some proverbial gag of "shits-and-giggles" - they detained Mr. Hawash and not Natoma for a reason. See, this is the crux of the issue which I shall address after you next statement:
No, the fundimental aspect is that you don't trust the government, you (as seen in the other concurrent thread) live in this fantasy world where the US will take every rule and break, twist, or otherwise manipulate it so they can screw the American citizen.
This is insane, I knew this man would be charged eventually - I had no regret, nor a second thought about it. Perhaps the government was still compiling it's argument or piecing together the overseas timeline, but the fact that they're holding him was for a reason.
And I know that keeping scum like this out of American cities and away from killing innocent American's is better than allowing them to walk the street's freely while the FBI nails the concrete case around them. Because if there's anything that's been a constant in the last 20 year complilation on the theory of biological and nuclear age terrorism is that one day is all it takes.
I also wonder why you have such a hard time trusting people... hmm
Dude, grow up.
How ironic, telling me to grow up after calling me a dude.
The Patriot Act allows a person to be picked up and held indefinitely without being charged with a crime. Considering the abuses in the 40s and 50s by the FBI and CIA when they had the power to tap any phone and spy on anyone they deemed as 'commies' or intransigents (witness the phone tappings on martin luther king jr. as an example), I can't believe that you're so naive. The gross violations of privacy and citizens rights during that time should be proof enough that given too much power, the governing bodies have and will abuse it, if left unchecked.
I have no trouble trusting my friends and family vince. I *do* have trouble trusting a government that sees no problem in slowly eroding the rights of american citizens. And I have problems with citizens who witness this erosion, yet throw up their hands and say "Well if he was taken away, he must have been guilty." What next. Salem Witch Hunts?
See, I believe in habeas corpus Vince. I believe in innocent until proven guilty.
Apparently you do not.
I have no trouble trusting my friends and family vince. I *do* have trouble trusting a government that sees no problem in slowly eroding the rights of american citizens. And I have problems with citizens who witness this erosion, yet throw up their hands and say "Well if he was taken away, he must have been guilty." What next. Salem Witch Hunts?
See, I believe in habeas corpus Vince. I believe in innocent until proven guilty.
Apparently you do not.
Vince said:
That is against the law. And not the ACLU law, the left-wing Chomsky-esque law. But the laws of the Constitution. You cannot hold someone until you build a case against them. That's "guilty until proven innocent", which if i remember correctly is not how that saying goes. All politics aside (and all liberal-bashing and/or conservative-bashing) this is just not right, and goes against the fundemental principles our country was founded upon, you must be able to see that.
Vince said:
Again, what ever happened to due process? While i do not condone the detention of non-US citizens after 9-11 (i think it was largely reactionary). This case is altogether different. He is an American Citizen, and being an American citizen he is guarenteed a certain set of rights under the constitution which cannot be denied.
He was denied these rights.
Now, it is coming out now that he does have ties to terrorists organizations and 3rd party relations with other suspected terrorist sympathizers. So I am glad that he has been caught, but that doesn't undermine the fact that as an American citizen he was held as a material witness and no one (outside of the court) was allowed to know why.
Now i know about "protecting your sources", and i know that sometimes it is in the best interest of a case for a judge to put up a media "gag-order". My father was a US Government agent working for the DoD for over 20 years, i known these things since i was 8. But I also know that selective use/abuse of the Constitution is a very scary thing to start seeing happen.
Vince said:
No one knows that better than I do.
I was less than a mile from the WTC, and watched the second tower collapse while the building i was in was shrouded from the sun in the shadow of the dust cloud of the already collapsed second tower. My daughter was at her 3rd day of kindergarten (on 63rd st.) and my wife (then pregnant with twins) and mother were in our apartment on 90th st. in Manhattan.
I used to take my daughter to kindergarten less than 3 block from one of the suspected Anthrax sites in NYC, and then rode the bus crosstown only to get out of it in front of ABC news (another suspected Anthrax site).
As a teenager i lived in a military community in Cold-War europe ( 85-88 ) while the Iron Curtian was falling and Libya was the terrorist-sponsoring country of the day. Not a month went by when my school wasnt evacuated due to a bomb threat (we are talking real bombs, not some homemade pipe-bomb made by some psycho 7th grader). I couldn't enter a military base without showing my ID and having a GI run a mirror under our car.
My father (as i mentioned above) was a govt. agent for 20 years, and is still a Coast Guard reservist (rank of Captain) going on 30 years now. He spent the last year of his DoD job working in and around NYC and Boston running leads on suspected terrorists and terrorist sympathizers. He spent several days at Ground Zero and Freshkills (the Staten Island land fill) looking for body parts. He recently got back from Bahrain where he was on a 6-month tour of duty helping to secure the ports there for the eventual Iraq War.
I have lived under the threat of terrorism before, and no doubt I will see it again even after the 9-11 hysteria goes away. I know what its like to be scared out of your mind as you watch a 110 story building collapsing into dust right before your eyes. I know what it is like to fear not only for my own life, but the lives of my children (born and unborn) and my wife. I know more than i want to know about the horrors that my father saw down at Ground Zero and while racking through debris at Freshkills.
But nothing you can say will convince me that all this justifies the removal of due process for American citizens, or the removal of our civil liberties.
FYI - I am not and never have been or never will be a member of the ACLU, please take note of that in your response.
-stvn
I'd imagine that if, say, one of Vince's family were detained under this act, his opinion might change?
That's the problem with saying "you've nothing to worry about if you are innocent" - the forces of law and order are not infallible. If you lose your civil rights and the authorities make an error, there is nobody that can help you.
That's the problem with saying "you've nothing to worry about if you are innocent" - the forces of law and order are not infallible. If you lose your civil rights and the authorities make an error, there is nobody that can help you.
Natoma said:
Natoma, one item you may not be aware of re: wiretapping and such.
The wiretap laws on the books pre-Patriot act were extremely outdated. They only allowed for the tapping of a number not a phone (and of course only with a judges permission). The new wiretap laws now allow you to tap an individual (also, only with a judges permission). While many people believe that wiretapping alone is an offense on our civil liberties, i disagree, its a fundemental tool for law enforcement.
The ability to tap an individual instead of a single number is a necessary thing in this age of disposable cell phones and email.
Its a fine line we are walking. While on one hand we all want our freedoms and civil liberties to stay intact, law enforcement cannot be crippled and left with archiac tools and techniques and still be expected to adequately protect us. Things must change with the times on all fronts.
Again, as i said in my eariler post, the line is drawn at what i beleive to be our fundemental right guarenteed under the constitution. (of course that line is kinda blurry and a little croked where "adjustments" have been made over the years, but you know what i mean).
Natoma said:
Of course government power will be abused if left unchecked. But our government is set up with checks and balances for just that reason. Our leaders are elected in free and open elections (of course there is and always will be some manipulation of elections, but at least we have more than one canidate on the ballot (unlike alot of countries in this world)).
Right now what worries me more than the government running unchecked (because i believe in the end the checks and balances system along with free elections will balance things), is the influence that corporations have upon our elected officials. That is where the true power lies in this new century, and that is where you need to be worried about the most.
-stvn
Then I should clarify my statement. The ability to tap a person, i.e. all communications such as a hard line, cellphone, email, etc, *without* a warrant is what the Patriot Act adds to the mix.
It's the portion of not having a warrant that is a violation of the rights of a citizen.
I should also add that they can now search your home while you're not there without leaving a copy of the warrant to let you know that you've been searched.
Now it may be up to debate whether or not that's a good thing given the times we live in, but i'm not particularly put at ease by the notion that the FBI can enter my home without me even knowing when or why they were there.
It's the portion of not having a warrant that is a violation of the rights of a citizen.
I should also add that they can now search your home while you're not there without leaving a copy of the warrant to let you know that you've been searched.
Now it may be up to debate whether or not that's a good thing given the times we live in, but i'm not particularly put at ease by the notion that the FBI can enter my home without me even knowing when or why they were there.
Stvn said:
Whats not right? Perhaps you should do some reading on how many times the US has suspended Writs of Habeas Corpus due to the security of the Nation's citizens and/or Constitution.
While you're endless rant on "whats right" is genuinly cute, it's hardly historically relevent when the nation is faced with an imminent threat - a threat that's more dangerous than any faced since that fatefull two weeks in 1962.
Infact if you actually read that constitution you so think you know - you'd have come across Article 1, Section 9 which deal with foreign invasion and/or attack which endangers the public safety and explicitly states that it's grounds for the suspension of the Writs of Habeas Corpus...
This has been done damn near 200 times in the last handful of centuries in the US. George Washington did it, Jackson did it, Lincoln did it. Hell, even after the 1866 ruling ex parte Milligan, the ability to declare Martial Law and the suspension of Habeas Corpus was left intact...
In this case, it's not that the government is doing something that so radical - but that our education system must be that damn bad. This is basic Constitution, oo bad people don't learn it...
Vince said:
What eduction did you get? Due Process guaranteed? Read the Consitution if you wish to argue on the merits that guided the founding fathers to allow, in the 18th century, the suspension of these very rights when faced with invasion and/or rebellion that threatens the Republic and Constitution. I would be forced to assume that the thought of an Al-Qaeda reject with a 10kt nuclear device would scare the shit out of the founders in ways I can't even express. If they made provisions for general invasion - fuck, thats what this is.
Umm... I address this above, perhaps you should read the Constitution.
Infact, beyond the Consitutionally sanctioned suspension of his Writ of Habaus Corpus, according to the new information - he's committed High Treason as per Article 3, Section 3 or 4 (IIRC) which is that whole "levies action againt the country and provides comfort, et al" thing and if you could get two witnesses to agree we could hang this asshole according to the Constitution.
This, infact, has nothing to do with it. Thats just layered ontop...
(1) Nobody is saying all Americans... as I tell Natoma frequently due to his wild imagination, the sad truth is that aslong as we pay our Taxes the government doesn't give a shit what he do within the constucts on the law. No, they don't want to watch you with your significant other from a Black helicopters.
(2) "Removal" of Civil Liberties [I hate that phrase, just how it's a catch-all for the traditional leftist phycho to use as much as possible] under certain cirmunstances (eg. Invasion, public safety do to external threat) is in the Constitution... but you can vent how much you hate that if you want to, although I doubt it....
I intended that for Natoma... but I'm glad to hear.
Natoma said:
Give me a break, like the shadowy government your so afraid of couldn't already tap your digital communication?
Hell, there are loop-holes everywhere. Technically (AFAIK), "overhearing" the digital content of a wire via induction isn't spying or tapping...
Because lets face it Natoma, the FBI has nothing better to do than enter your house and look at the porn on your computer. I don't care if the FBI enters my house, hell, stay and have a drink.. just take off your shoes and don't question how I get cable. I have nothing to hide, nor fear, nor ever think twice about. They want to waste their time here, go right ahead - tap my damn electronic communication like the NSA already does, my life isn't that interesting.
