First they came for the Jews, and I didn't 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 for me! -Pastor Niemoller (imprisoned in a concentration camp during WWII)


‘We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.’

- United States Declaration of Independence, July 4, 1776


From today’s New York Times
Rather than send investigators out knocking on doors, law enforcement officials in Michigan are sending letters today to hundreds of young Middle Eastern men who have come to the United States on temporary visas in the last two years, inviting them to make appointments for interviews regarding the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks.

The decision by the antiterrorism task force in the Detroit area, which is responsible for contacting about 700 of the 5,000 visitors sought for questioning nationwide, comes after two weeks of complaints from lawyers, community groups and local police chiefs that the vast canvass order by the Department of Justice unfairly singles out people based on religion or nationality and would be too time-consuming.

They refused to say what the authorities would do about those who failed to call.

Separately, Attorney General John Ashcroft yesterday defended the widespread detention of immigrants who had been swept up in the aftermath of the attacks, saying the arrests had "made America grow stronger, not weaker," and had been instrumental in "winning the war on terrorism."

In an eight-page memorandum outlining guidelines for the interviews, the Justice Department instructed local officials to check visitors' passports and visas. They are also to be asked about their visits to local landmarks and foreign countries; about their sources of income, scientific expertise and access to weapons, including anthrax; and for a list of phone numbers of friends and relatives.

"The individual should be asked if he is aware of anybody, including himself, who has received any training which could be applicable to terrorist activities," said the memorandum, whose contents were disclosed on Saturday in The Detroit Free Press. "You should ask whether the individual is aware of any persons who have sympathy for the Sept. 11 hijackers or other terrorists."

"You're asking people what are your political beliefs and what are the beliefs of your friends," said Hussein Ibish, a spokesman for the American Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee. "That is a set of questions that has a dark history in our country."

The Detroit letter emphasizes, with a boldface sentence, "We have no reason to believe that you are, in any way, associated with terrorist activities." The interviews are voluntary, it said, adding that "it is crucial that the investigation be broad based and thorough, and the interview is important to achieve that goal."

‘Are you now or have you ever been a member of the Communist Party?’
Senator Joseph McCarthy.


I feel a certain unease about the latest development in Michigan. I’m not sure if visitors to the US are given the same civil liberties that citizens take for granted. I’m sure that the gist of the argument for these letters will be along the lines of ‘if you are not guilty why would you worry about these interviews’, but the thing about phone numbers of your friends and family reminded me of the way the McCarthy witch-hunts evolved, with people putting the names of their friends forward in order to save their own skin.

So what do you Americans think? Is this the thin edge of the wedge, is your Government overstepping the mark here?

Our hospitality has been abused, and we have become less hospitable.

Should we not ask any questions? Where do you draw the line? Do you wait until someone acts before asking questions or taking action? Do people have to die to justify inquiries?

The terrorists that abused the system pointed out flaws, should they not be addressed? Is it wrong to want to know if someone who is a visiter in the US is sympathetic to Osama Bin Laden?

What about American's rights to "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness"?

A comparison to the McCarthyism of the 50's is a bit premature, unless of course, the comparison is about the vilification of America by the world.

Personnally, I have nothing against the police knocking on doors to find more possible criminals (terrorists or others). Civil liberties might the a right and a corner stone of our society but they are also our downfall. Do you think that those attacks would'a happened if we we allowed to really play "Big Brother". I don't think they would'a... they most likely would have been stopped before they struck!

Now, to the questions. They are dumb (mind you, so were the questions of McCarthy). Naturally, many of those will be seconded by a lawyer when it's gonna be time for the interview and I'd be really surprised if even one of the 5,000 interviewed admited to have been trained or be sympathetic to the terrorist cause! Well, we'll see how it all goes! [img]smile.gif[/img]

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by Ronn_Bman:
[QB


The terrorists that abused the system pointed out flaws, should they not be addressed? Is it wrong to want to know if someone who is a visiter in the US is sympathetic to Osama Bin Laden?

A comparison to the McCarthyism of the 50's is a bit premature, unless of course, the comparison is about the vilification of America by the world.[/QB]<hr></blockquote>

My concern is that the questions asked are based on the colour of your skin. My reference to McCartyism was related to the specific point about giving up the names of your friends.

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by Donut:


My concern is that the questions asked are based on the colour of your skin. My reference to McCartyism was related to the specific point about giving up the names of your friends.<hr></blockquote>

Not on the color of their skin, but their nationality, which honestly isn't much better in the short view. It does make sense though since some middle easterners have espoused and acted on the idea of bringing down America by taking advantage of our system that others would be asked if they feel the same. All middle easterners aren't terrorists, so we shouldn't even ask?

Is it really inappropriate to question visitors here on visas? They are here as our guests, shouldn't they be willing to answer questions. If we allow them access to our nation, shouldn't they be willing to say they have no bad intentions towards us? Based on what happened through the abuse of this privilege by others, it will never be the same open policy it once was. Is America ruining the privilege by asking questions, or did those who so abused it to strike at our country?

Doesn't the safety provided by locating terrorists protect everyone, including those innocents here on visas?

Is this going to be of any practical use? Or is it just a public relations excercise designed by government to show they are taking action and reassure citizens?

It comes over pretty much as a voluntary thing - somehow, I can't see anyone who *did* have anything to do with 9/11 coming forward, somehow. Unless they're a total moron, that is...

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by Silver Cheetah:
Is this going to be of any practical use? Or is it just a public relations excercise designed by government to show they are taking action and reassure citizens?

It comes over pretty much as a voluntary thing - somehow, I can't see anyone who *did* have anything to do with 9/11 coming forward, somehow. Unless they're a total moron, that is...<hr></blockquote>

Are you following me :D

Hopefully, it will be effective. We have to make sure those who visit our country harbor no ill will to US.

I'm not sure it has much of a calming effect because it has the "civil rights" crowd up in arms.

Voluntary at first, but I'm sure people are being scrutanized. Not showing up won't be looked at favorably, and will certainly be worthy of further investigation.

Regarding civil rights, racial/ehtnic/nation profiling...

A while back I was watching (horrors!!!) CNN and a CNN reporter (not a guest talking head) made the rather interesting comment (I apologize to any Swedes in advance, I am merely repeating) (Also, I am paraphrasing... I don't remember the exact words.)

"When Swedes start flying planes into buildings, then I'll worry about Swedes. For now it's young Middle Eastern men who are doing this. Therefore, I see nothing wrong with profiling young middle eastern men."

And I agree with the gist of this statement. When you know for a fact that the potential terrorists fall into a certain definable group of persons, it is utterly ridiculous to try to pretend and act otherwise for sake of political correctness!!!


Furthermore, remember, we are not talking about some undefinable threat of something that might happen. We're talking about a real attack on the US by members of the above defined group of persons. And the threat that another attack(s) could occur. OBL has certainly urged further attacks. The "threat" is very real.

This is not like the "threat" of sabotage by Japanese-Americans in WW2. That was pure and simple unsubstantiated fear. Had there been sabotage attacks made by said citizens, that might have been one thing. But to the best of my knowledge, no such attacks ever occured. Pure and simple fear, not backed up by reality.

But today, we do have reality, the reality that an attack was made on the US that cost us 4000+ lives of our citizens and not a few citizens of other countries. And those attacks were for a fact carried out by enemies that were hiding among us. The fear of another attack this time is not based on baseless fear. It is based on the knowledge that it was done once and could be done again.

I'm not really certain where we (i.e. the US) should proceed from here. At times, I think that we should "invite" all middle eastern non-citizens to leave in 30 days. Other times, I think why bother...

Oh a side comment ...

On of the terrorists convicted in the 1st bombing of the WTC turned out to be a naturalized American muslim from the middle east. I think that he should now (and should have been at the time) charged with TREASON!!!!! Furthermore, any American citizen who is found to have knowingly assisted in the 09-11 attacks should also be charged with TREASON!!!!!

Regarding civil rights, racial/ehtnic/nation profiling...

A while back I was watching (horrors!!!) CNN and a CNN reporter (not a guest talking head) made the rather interesting comment (I apologize to any Swedes in advance, I am merely repeating) (Also, I am paraphrasing... I don't remember the exact words.)

"When Swedes start flying planes into buildings, then I'll worry about Swedes. For now it's young Middle Eastern men who are doing this. Therefore, I see nothing wrong with profiling young middle eastern men."

And I agree with the gist of this statement. When you know for a fact that the potential terrorists fall into a certain definable group of persons, it is utterly ridiculous to try to pretend and act otherwise for sake of political correctness!!!


Furthermore, remember, we are not talking about some undefinable threat of something that might happen. We're talking about a real attack on the US by members of the above defined group of persons. And the threat that another attack(s) could occur. OBL has certainly urged further attacks. The "threat" is very real.

This is not like the "threat" of sabotage by Japanese-Americans in WW2. That was pure and simple unsubstantiated fear. Had there been sabotage attacks made by said citizens, that might have been one thing. But to the best of my knowledge, no such attacks ever occured. Pure and simple fear, not backed up by reality.

But today, we do have reality, the reality that an attack was made on the US that cost us 4000+ lives of our citizens and not a few citizens of other countries. And those attacks were for a fact carried out by enemies that were hiding among us. The fear of another attack this time is not based on baseless fear. It is based on the knowledge that it was done once and could be done again.

I'm not really certain where we (i.e. the US) should proceed from here. At times, I think that we should "invite" all middle eastern non-citizens to leave in 30 days. Other times, I think why bother...

Oh a side comment ...

On of the terrorists convicted in the 1st bombing of the WTC turned out to be a naturalized American muslim from the middle east. I think that he should now (and should have been at the time) charged with TREASON!!!!! Furthermore, any American citizen who is found to have knowingly assisted in the 09-11 attacks should also be charged with TREASON!!!!!

What the???

Sorry about the double post. Don't know how that happened.

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by Ronn_Bman:


Is it really inappropriate to question visitors here on visas? They are here as our guests, shouldn't they be willing to answer questions. If we allow them access to our nation, shouldn't they be willing to say they have no bad intentions towards us? Based on what happened through the abuse of this privilege by others, it will never be the same open policy it once was. <hr></blockquote>

And it shouldn't be, because our policies were most definitely flawed...for example:

I just read today in the Moscow Times (our local English language newspaper) that only now with the new aviation security legislation signed last week will all airlines be required to conform with Advance Passenger Information System (APIS). This is where information about incoming passengers and crew members is cross-checked against national databases of the State Department, Customs, INS, FBI, etc. I couldn't believe that this hadn't been a requirement previously! Some 58 airlines had "elected" to not participate in this program up until now when its mandatory. IMHO enforcing these measures makes a lot more sense and is much more effective than the "Michigan letters".

In case anyone is interested, here's the link to the article:

http://www.themoscowtimes.com/storie...11/28/002.html

We have an interesting civil liberty problem unfolding at the moment. An Algerian pilot has been accuses of training the september 11 hijackers. he has been held in custody for two months awaiting extradition to the US. He was detained on the basis that evidence would be forthcoming from the US showing him on camera with one of the hijackers. It now transpires that the other person was not one of the hijackers.

The problem is that this man is almost certainly guilty of being involved but would not be convicted in a court due to the lack of hard evidence. Britain cannot extradite a person to be tried in a military court. The FBI has asked for more time. They are preparing 11 further charges but will not say what they are.

He has been remanded in custody until December 14 and will today appeal to the High Court in London against his continued imprisonment.

So, do we let him go or not?

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by Donut:
We have an interesting civil liberty problem unfolding at the moment. An Algerian pilot has been accuses of training the september 11 hijackers. he has been held in custody for two months awaiting extradition to the US. He was detained on the basis that evidence would be forthcoming from the US showing him on camera with one of the hijackers. It now transpires that the other person was not one of the hijackers.

The problem is that this man is almost certainly guilty of being involved but would not be convicted in a court due to the lack of hard evidence. Britain cannot extradite a person to be tried in a military court. The FBI has asked for more time. They are preparing 11 further charges but will not say what they are.

He has been remanded in custody until December 14 and will today appeal to the High Court in London against his continued imprisonment.

So, do we let him go or not?<hr></blockquote>

Is this Othman (Omar abu Omar) or a different High Court Appeal going on today?

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by Donut:
We have an interesting civil liberty problem unfolding at the moment. An Algerian pilot has been accuses of training the september 11 hijackers. he has been held in custody for two months awaiting extradition to the US. He was detained on the basis that evidence would be forthcoming from the US showing him on camera with one of the hijackers. It now transpires that the other person was not one of the hijackers.

The problem is that this man is almost certainly guilty of being involved but would not be convicted in a court due to the lack of hard evidence. Britain cannot extradite a person to be tried in a military court. The FBI has asked for more time. They are preparing 11 further charges but will not say what they are.

He has been remanded in custody until December 14 and will today appeal to the High Court in London against his continued imprisonment.

So, do we let him go or not?<hr></blockquote>

If he "almost certainly is guilty" he should at least be held until they are sure he isn't a danger to the world. His inconvenience weighed against the danger to the lives of many innocents is a small price. The many are more important than the few even in a Democracy.

I believe the US is now trying to extradite him on "lesser" charges of lying to the INS and his trying to help someone else receive a falsified visa.

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by Magness:
Regarding civil rights, racial/ehtnic/nation profiling...
<hr></blockquote>

Excellent post! As was the follow up post :D

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by Donut:


My concern is that the questions asked are based on the colour of your skin. My reference to McCartyism was related to the specific point about giving up the names of your friends.<hr></blockquote>

Mate I've been given the grill in the U.S. and I look nothing like a middle eastern. Just your standard Anglo-Celtic Teuton here.

I even got the grill coming back into Australia! My homeland! I'm not even an alien!

In times like this the bar gets raised.

In the church in NYC I've got two Pakistani friends who keep getting problems.

It's not good and they don't like it, but they don't expect anything else given the circumstances.

The rules of the game have changed. :( More's the pity.

I don't often post here, but quite often lurk, sometimes enjoying the ebb and flow of impassioned debate, sometimes wincing at the sight of another singed member limping off to recuperate.....

Anyway, every time I see arguements for suspending civil liberties in pursuit of the "Greater Good" (whatever that might be) I am reminded of this passage from the play "A Man For All Seasons" by Robert Bolt

More - There is no law against that.

Roper - There is! God's law!

More - Then God can arrest him.

Roper - Sophistication upon sophistication.

More - No, sheer simplicity. The law, Roper, the law. I know what's legal not what's right. And I'll stick to what's legal.

Roper - Then you set man's law above God's!

More - No, far below; but let me draw your attention to a fact - I'm not God. The currents and eddies of right and wrong, which you find such plain sailing, I can't navigate. I'm no voyager. But in the thickets of the law, oh, there I'm a forrester. I doubt if there's a man alive who could follow me there, thank God....

Alice - While you talk, he's gone!

More - And go he should, if he was the Devil himself, until he broke the law!

Roper - So now you'd give the Devil benefit of law!

More - Yes. What would you do? Cut a great road through the law to get after the Devil?

Roper - 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's 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 - d'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.

Roper - I have long suspected this, this is the golden calf; the law's your god!

More - Oh, Roper, you're a fool, God's my god....But I find him rather too subtle....I don't know where He is or what He wants.

Roper - My God wants service, to the end and unremitting; nothing else!

More - Are you sure that's God? He sounds like Moloch. But indeed it may be God - And whoever hunts for me, Roper, God or Devil, will find me hiding in the thickets of the law! And I'll hide my daughter with me! Not hoist her up the mainmast of your seagoing principles! They put about too nimbly!

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by Argus:


I just read today in the Moscow Times (our local English language newspaper) that only now with the new aviation security legislation signed last week will all airlines be required to conform with Advance Passenger Information System (APIS). This is where information about incoming passengers and crew members is cross-checked against national databases of the State Department, Customs, INS, FBI, etc. I couldn't believe that this hadn't been a requirement previously! Some 58 airlines had "elected" to not participate in this program up until now when its mandatory. IMHO enforcing these measures makes a lot more sense and is much more effective than the "Michigan letters".

[/URL]<hr></blockquote>

Well said.

Enforcing the measures no doubt costs money, thus eating into airline profits. Hence the airlines electing not to participate.

No one's saying do away with the laws or forget about them in this circumstance. There are interpretations of any law. Even those I've seen complaining about the threat to civil liberty admit there is precident and case law to back up current actions. It's the idea they fear.

American's overwhelming believe the measures currently being taken are both necessary and just according to a Washington Post poll out today.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv...data112801.htm

This poll can also be broken down by sex, race, party, education, age, and region here:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac3/ContentServer?pagename=polls&interactive=n& searchPollId=2001331

Here are the highlights regarding civil liberty (it didn't center exactly right, but I think you can get the idea):

11. As it conducts the war on terrorism, do you think the United States government is doing enough to protect the rights of (READ ITEM), or not?

11/27/01
Yes No No opin.

a. Average Americans 81 16 2

b. Arab-Americans and American Muslims 73 19 8

c. Non-citizens from Arab and Muslim
countries who are living in the US 69 22 9

d. People who've been investigated for
suspected involvement in terrorism 71 21 8

12. As part of its terrorism investigation, the federal government says it wants to interview about 5,000 young men from the Middle East who are in the United States on temporary visas. The government says the men are not suspects and the interviews are voluntary. Others say this approach singles out these men unfairly on the basis of their national origin. What's your opinion - do you support or oppose the plan to interview these 5,000 men?

Support Oppose No opin.
11/27/01 79 19 2

13a. SPLIT SAMPLE VERSION A: Do you think non-U.S. citizens who are charged with terrorism should be put on trial (in the regular U.S. criminal court system) or (in a special military tribunal)?

US criminal court system/Military tribunal/No opin.
11/27/01 37 59 4

13b. SPLIT SAMPLE VERSION B: It's been proposed that non-U.S. citizens who are charged with terrorism should be put on trial in a special military tribunal, where trials can be closed to the public, with a military judge and jury, and there's no right to an appeal.

Some people (say this would protect ongoing investigations and avoid the use of civilian jurors who may fear for their lives.) Others (say it would be wrong to let the military conduct closed trials under new rules, and to single out non-citizens this way.)

Do you think non-U.S. citizens who are charged with terrorism should be put on trial (in the regular U.S. criminal court system) or (in a special military tribunal)?

US criminal court system/Military tribunal/No opin.
11/27/01 38 58 4

14. George W. Bush favors the use of special military tribunals. Knowing Bush's position, what do you think - should non-U.S. citizens who are charged with terrorism be put on trial (in the regular U.S. criminal court system) or (in a special military tribunal)?

US criminal court system/Military tribunal/No opin.
11/27/01 34 64 3

15. Do you think it should be legal or illegal for the federal government to wiretap conversations between people who are being held on terrorism charges and their lawyers?

Legal Illegal No opin.
11/27/01 73 24 3

16. The U.S. government is detaining about 600 people in its investigation of the September 11th attacks, most of them for overstaying their visas or otherwise violating immigration laws. Do you think the United States is or is not justified in detaining these people?

Yes No No opin.
11/27/01 86 12 2