Taking off on Arvon's thread "Why I hate the government," here is my current gripe. I don't mind so much when the government sits on its lazy, red-tape beleaguered ass whittling away my tax money. I do mind when it jails people, does not disclose their names, denies access to an attorney, and does not charge them. If you don't charge them, then they broke no law, IMO.

Judge Tatel is my personal hero for today, 6/17/03. [img]graemlins/thumbsup.gif[/img]

Note that according to one of the lawyers, this is the FIRST JUDICIALLY APPROVED SECRET ARREST IN US HISTORY. Welcome to the "home of the free until the government gets you in its sights."

Today's NY TIMES:
__________________________________________________ _____________

Names of 9/11 Detainees Can Remain Secret, Court Rules
By MARK J. PRENDERGAST

A federal appeals court, reversing a lower-court decision, ruled today that the government did not have to disclose the names of more than 700 people detained in the aftermath of Sept. 11, 2001, agreeing with the Justice Department that making that information public could "allow Al Qaeda and other terrorist groups to map the course of the investigation."

The 2-to-1 decision by a panel of the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia was a rebuff to the civil liberties and other groups that were challenging the Bush administration's refusal to provide the names and other information about people, mostly immigrants, held in connection with the 9/11 terrorism investigation, on the ground of national security.

The court said the government could withhold the dates and locations of arrest, detention and release of all detainees, including those charged with federal crimes, and the names of lawyers representing them.

"A complete list of names informing terrorists of every suspect detained by the government at any point during the Sept. 11 investigation would give terrorist organizations a composite picture of the government investigation," the majority wrote today. "Disclosure would inform terrorists of both the substantive and geographic focus of the investigation. Moreover, disclosure would inform terrorists which of their members were compromised by the investigation, and which were not."

But in a sharply worded dissent, Judge David S. Tatel faulted his two colleagues, David B. Sentelle and Karen Lecraft Henderson, for showing "uncritical deference to the government's vague, poorly explained arguments for withholding broad categories of information about the detainees."

While noting that the government had a legitimate basis for keeping some information secret, Judge Tatel cited "another compelling public interest," which he defined as "knowing whether the government, in responding to the attacks, is violating the constitutional rights of the hundreds of persons whom it has detained in connection with its terrorism investigation."

"Citizens have a compelling interest in ensuring that their government does not, in discharging its duties, abuse one of its most awesome powers, the power to arrest and jail," Judge Tatel wrote in arguing that the government had overextended its use of an exemption under the Freedom of Information Act.

Judge Tatel said fuller disclosure concerning the detainees would help the public determine whether people had been detained "mainly because of their religion or ethnicity" and whether the government was "holding them in custody for extended periods without charge or preventing them from seeking or communicating with legal counsel."

But Judges Sentelle and Henderson said the judiciary owed a certain amount of deference to the government in determining what would and would not harm national security interests in the campaign against terrorism.

"America faces an enemy just as real as its former Cold War foes, with capabilities beyond the capacity of the judiciary to explore," the judges wrote. "It is abundantly clear that the government's top counterterrorism officials are well-suited to make this predictive judgment. Conversely, the judiciary is in an extremely poor position to second-guess the executives judgment in this area of national security."

The case, brought by a large coalition of groups seeking the names under the Freedom of Information Act, is one of a handful of cases dealing with the delicate balance between civil liberties and public safety that are making their way through the courts in response to administration actions after Sept. 11.

On June 3, the groups' concerns and criticisms of administration actions gained credence when the Justice Department's inspector general reported that the roundup of hundreds of illegal immigrants in the months after Sept. 11 had been plagued by "significant problems" that forced many people with no connection to terrorism to languish in jails in unduly harsh conditions.

But today's appellate court decision was clearly a setback for the coalition.

Ralph G. Neas, president of People for the American Way, a coalition member, said in a statement that the court's action could presage a "stunning rollback of rights in America."

"This ruling gives amazing deference to the Justice Department and cripples the critical role of oversight in protecting rights in America," Mr. Neas said. "This ruling allows the Department of Justice to bury these secret arrests even deeper. Now the public is denied access even to the names of attorneys representing detainees."

A principal lawyer for the coalition in the suit, Kate Martin, the director of the Center for National Security Studies civil liberties group, said, "We are disappointed that for the first time in U.S. history, a court has approved secret arrests and we plan to pursue the case," according to Reuters.

The ruling can be appealed either to the full appellate court or to the Supreme Court.

Attorney General John Ashcroft said in a statement on the Justice Department's Web site, "We are pleased the court agreed we should not give terrorists a virtual road map to our investigation that could allow terrorists to chart a potentially deadly detour around our efforts."

In the lower-court ruling, Judge Gladys Kessler of Federal District Court in Washington held that the Bush administration had no right to conceal the identities of hundreds of people arrested after the Sept. 11 terror attacks, and she ordered that most of their names be released within 15 days, though she stayed her ruling to allow for an appeal.

Judge Kessler said that while it was the obligation of the executive branch to ensure the physical security of American citizens, "the first priority of the judicial branch must be to ensure that our government always operates within the statutory and constitutional constraints which distinguish a democracy from a dictatorship."

The F.B.I. and the Department of Justice appealed. Speaking after Judge Kessler's ruling, Robert McCallum, the assistant attorney general for the civil division, asserted that government investigators "firmly believe that the information sought by the plaintiffs, if released, could jeopardize the investigation and provide valuable information to terrorists seeking to cause even greater harm to the safety of the American people."

But Judge Kessler dismissed as too speculative the government's argument that the release of the names would allow terrorist groups to track the progress of its investigation.

[ 06-17-2003, 07:43 PM: Message edited by: Timber Loftis ]

Hey, most of those detainees aren't even American right? So why should we care? And for the nameless, faceless Americans that may be caught up in this... They are probably traitors. For terrorists, it is guilty til proven innocent...right?

It's not like it's the principle of the matter or it's anything that has to do with consistent values. Right?

Wrong! No! We should care. Whatever principles our justice system has left is what's at stake. Secret arrests are the most un-American thing I can imagine.


Alas, who cares about news like this when the Clintons are still around to bash? ;) [img]tongue.gif[/img]

<font face="COMIC Sans MS" size="3" color="#7c9bc4">
I am sooooo worried...they are just rounding up thousands of people..ohhh all those poor innocent souls being detained....oh the humanity.....

OOps wait....the Supreme court has ruled...and this court has ruled again...law enforcement branches are all A-OK with it....all I see here are a bunch of lawyers trying to find a way to make some $$$.

I can be as cynical and sarcastic as you can Timber ;) </font>

[ 06-18-2003, 09:24 AM: Message edited by: MagiK ]

THE FIRST JUDICIALLY-APPROVED SECRET JAILING. I am not cynical or sarcastic. I am seriously worried. Jailing people without levelling charges??? They can do it to you, too.

So, I'm watching Law & Order the other night. Since my wife's a prosecutor, we tend to watch this a lot, me yelling about injustice and abuse of rights and her smiling smugly. Anywho, the FBI arrests our intrepid hero detectives. In one scene, one of them says "Charge me or let me go. I'm leaving."

The FBI agent smugly replies "No you're not, since 9/11 I can keep you 72 hours without charging you." :( :( The use of tragedy to justify a police state? That's not the US. Not my US. And I am getting violently angry over it. :(

[ 06-18-2003, 09:33 AM: Message edited by: Timber Loftis ]

I'm glad to see the judiciary has such strong faith in the anti-terrorism leadership. After all, all the evidence that they possessed before 9/11 didn't lead to a credible threat and all the level orange threats that never amount to anything are credible. One day we will even find the link between Al Quida and Iraq which was clear and provable until we conquered the country. Maybe we should just use the old Soviet Union's excuses and tatics and take over all of North America to protect the heartland of America from attack. After all, wouldn't Canada, Mexico, all of Central and South America be better if they had our help, guidance, and protection.

These types of arrest do worry and concern me. If one persons undocumented testimony can send people to prison (ex. the Tulia, Texas and Dallas, Texas drug case scandals)then abuse by police and federal agencies can happen anywhere. It only takes 1 corrupt offical to due major damage to indivuals and our political freedoms for which our forebearers (including mine) shed their blood.

:D :D :D

Wait, take over Canada. They must be part of the Axis-of-evil since they didn't back Dumbaya in his war against Irak!

[ 06-18-2003, 12:56 PM: Message edited by: Ryanamur ]

<font face="COMIC Sans MS" size="3" color="#7c9bc4">
Antryg you can blame all the stupid Code Orange BS on the Media and idiot civilians. They bitched and bitched about the government not telling them about threats...welll now they got their wish...everytime something is discovered...bang we alert the media..now you cannot blame the administration or the intel services for not letting you know someone is pissed off at us.

Sometimes you get what ya wish for guys...this is it...Enjoy :D </font>

MagiK, L&O may well indeed be a product of Holy-wood's liberal machine, but the law is the law and just because an FBI guy didn't say it in real life doesn't mean he CAN'T.

Does anyone out there see a connection between the current terrorist-linked imprisonment and Japanese Internment? The Supreme Court rubber-stamped that too, you know. For the same National Security reasons.

Just a wild guess on my part but if you are a spy or terrorist and one of your contacts disappears, don't you assume they have been arrested. I'm not sure that keeping names secret stops terrorists from figuring it out. If they think it will interfere with an investigation I could even stretch my faith/belief in waiting a week to make it public. Several months or "when I say so!" is totally unacceptable.

<font face="COMIC Sans MS" size="3" color="#7c9bc4">
In answer to the question in paragraph 2...Nope not at all.
In the WWII internment issue..ALL Japanese Americans were rounded up..in this case..only people who were on specific watch lists were picked up...there is a major difference. The old addage is "Be careful who your friends are" comes to mind, Sort of like "don't invite anyone into your home who may be into illegal substances"..since by law if he is discovered there, your property may be seized...
</font>

<font face="COMIC Sans MS" size="3" color="#7c9bc4">
You aren't looking at it from the inside....If your contact disappears..you get scared...very scared....you don't know if you are next..or if the guy was just killed in a shoot out..or has he given you up? In this case..No information is good for the good guys and definately bad for the bad guys. You can paralyze an organization this way....tactics, tactics, tactics. </font>

Great idea! So when do we start rounding up all the Christian terrorist organizations? The violent fringe of the 'Right to Life' movement and been committing acts of domestic terrorism for decades. We could start by rounding up all the people expressing support for Eric Rudolph for questioning. They are terrorist sympathizers and may have vital information on his case.

LOL... did I just hear you right MagiK? Thats possibly the worst argument I've heard you come out with in defence of these new anti-terrorist measures. As far as I'me aware the argument has gone like this so far:

Step 1: TL mentions Law and Order,
Step 2: You concede that that could happen... but that its written by liberals so it probably won't.

Eh? Am I the only one who thinks that thats missing the point slightly? The same as with your argument that terrorists and their associates deserve what they get. TL's point is not that this is happening all the time, or that its happening to nice people, but that it sets a precedent whereby it could happen to anyone.

You know as well as I do that if this kind of perversion of justice were employed by any liberals, pinkos, commies, socialists, etc, then you'd be screaming blue murder about it. I wonder what it is that makes you turn a blind eye to such a forceful argument. The point is not that its happening to terrorists, but that it could happen to anyone. As such all of your Darwinian points, or "liberal hype" points are about as valid as Stevie Wonder's driving license. This is not about perception, or hype, or association. This is about a possibility, one that concretely and constitutionally exists now. You can't say that that is hype or exxageration, because its cold hard fact.

HEAR, HEAR! Good point, and current. As you and Barry yon Sprout point out, the problem is the precedent. At some point within the next 6 years, the benevolent wise and loved larger-than-life president that is George W. Bush will cease to be President. What about the next guy, or gal to fill the spot -- the Patriot Act and "domestic terror crimes" and the precedent will still be around.

How will you like this law when Hilary Rodham is in office? [img]graemlins/1ponder.gif[/img]

Great idea! So when do we start rounding up all the Christian terrorist organizations? The violent fringe of the 'Right to Life' movement and been committing acts of domestic terrorism for decades. We could start by rounding up all the people expressing support for Eric Rudolph for questioning. They are terrorist sympathizers and may have vital information on his case. </font>[/QUOTE]<font face="COMIC Sans MS" size="3" color="#7c9bc4">
Hey, I have no idea where you got the idea that I support any Christian or right to life terrorists. I am against anyone who kills indiscriminantly and who target civilians and children. SO you are preaching to the choir there guy. I think you made an assumption and got it wrong in this case [img]smile.gif[/img] </font>

I find stark irony in the fact Saddam Hussien's regime used secret detentions to protect what was then Iraq's national security. Take away (hopefully) the torture and executions and wham you have just about the same thing. People being hauled off into the night, with no legal recourse and no way to tell loved ones what happened to them.

As far as these detainees supporting terrorists. That is whats called an allegation. I'll believe that when they are tried and convicted publicly. I'll even give Eric Rudolph the benifit of the doubt til the verdict is read.

And you miss my point to I'm afraid MagiK. The show was displaying a fact, a fact that cannot be skewed - that the laws no exist to make these things possible. You may disagree with the writers of that program about whether or not it would happen right now in that the way they depicted, but you cannot disagree with their central point - that it is possible.

And then once again you come back to the idea that these guys deserve it. Well, thats not my point, so frankly I'm not going to debate it with you. My point it that if it happens to those guys then in 10 years time who knows who its going to be happening to?

MagiK, the problem is we do not KNOW the veracity of your statement that these people are intimately connected to terror. We do not know that they are intimately connected to anything, as we do not know their names, what they are linked to, or what they have done. They can't prove they're not intimately connected because they have no lawyer and no charges to dispute.

Sorry, but I don't trust the administration's word THAT much. "Yeah, trust us, but we can't tell you why."

They were so trustworthy with the WoMD determination. :rolleyes: Aren't we all lucky they substituted their knowledge in place of the UN's and its 160 or so countries and saved us from all those horrible weapons. :rolleyes:

It is the crack in the egg. It is the beginning of the long road to tyranny. It is a baby step now, but the path is clear.

Besides, under the often lauded FIRST AMENDMENT's freedom of association, (touted by Rhenquist and other constitutional scholars as one of the primary defining American-specific freedoms setting us apart - and central in the Boy Scouts case) you cannot be prosecuted for being a friend of a terrorist. Or knowing them. Or even belonging to Al Queda. Like the KKK, you have a right to associate with like-minded individuals and be as stupid as you like -- so long as you commit no crimes.

And, that is as it should be. Limiting association is tantamount to legislating thought and belief.

But then non-citizens don't enjoy the protection of the First Amendment now, do they? (Of course, that judge-made law in and of itself derrogates from the plain language of the First Amendment which does not mention rights of citizens but rather says "Congress shall make no law....")

[ 06-18-2003, 07:13 PM: Message edited by: Timber Loftis ]

Well, Timber, being that it is the US Constitution, that kinda implies US Citizens - no one else.

This is a very dangerous trend, though. The gov is trying to find numerous loop holes to abuse people. They aren't US citizens, so they don't enjoy the protection of the Constitution. OK - I can buy that. But they are also trying to claim that they don't enjoy POW status either because they were "unlawful combatants". Now there is some fine work of legal dancing.

I can understand that these people were taken from a combat zone, and their value as intelligence sources is extremely valuable, but not playing by rules that we helped create just sends the image that we are an 800 lb gorilla that does what it wants and doesn't care what anyone else thinks. That maybe true, but it's not political to actually act that way.

Since they were taken, presumably, on the battlefield, one of two things should have happened. Treated them as soldiers and <s>executed on the spot</s> killed them in battle. Or, taken as POWs as prescribed by Geneva Conventions.

This legal acrobatic act that the gov is taking is a very BadThing^TM. First the treatment of the detainees at GTMO, then the Patriot Act (which openly flouts every word in the Bill of Rights). Next we have Ceassar having Congress declare him President for Life. Never happen you say? Hmmmm ..... ignoring the numerous Third World examples, I seem to reacall another very succuessfull Democratically Republican Empire doing just so about 2000 years ago .....

I may be wrong Night Stalker but I think the article refers to another group of illegally held people rather than those who are at Camp X-ray.

<font face="COMIC Sans MS" size="3" color="#7c9bc4">
Couple of points.

</font>

1. I am biased due to my background work in the intelligence field.</font>
2. I am predisposed to understate in the face of what I see as "Hysteria" and Panic.</font>
3. I truely believe that the people rounded up and put in Camp X-ray got there for very good reasons.</font>
4. I believe the men and women involved in rounding these people up are good, decent human beings and were not out to just get "any old raghead".</font>
5. In the case of terror suspects, I am willing to give law enforcement and intelligence services the benefit of the doubt rather than non-nationals.</font>
6. I have no sympathy for any group who target civilians especially women and children.</font>
7. I understand TL's concern and other peoples concerns and it is good to question authority.</font>
8. I understand that my opinion is no more important than anyone elses and since I don't see any reason for others to agree with me, I have pretty much said all I need to say on the subject.</font>

Thank you and goodnight Gracie [img]smile.gif[/img] </font>

<font face="COMIC Sans MS" size="3" color="#7c9bc4">

One last thought</font>

Hello! Is there anyone there?

These are not the camp X-ray detainees. The are the 750 or so that were detained mostly in and around New York, mostly of middle eastern descent and mainly muslims. It's unknown how many of them are US citizens.

Will you deny them their rights under the constitution?

<font face="COMIC Sans MS" size="3" color="#7c9bc4">
Hello! is anyone in there? My post did not reference the people in NY. Did you not see the "camp X-ray" in bright blue letters? :D

As for the people in NY you are refering to, I don't have any information on them, I haven't even read any stories on them so I have no opinion on that matter.....yet.
</font>

<font face="COMIC Sans MS" size="3" color="#7c9bc4">
Did a google search for New York Detainees and didn't find even one reference...some one have a link to stories about 700 New York citizens being detained?</font>

<font face="COMIC Sans MS" size="3" color="#7c9bc4">
Hello! is anyone in there? My post did not reference the people in NY. Did you not see the "camp X-ray" in bright blue letters? :D

As for the people in NY you are refering to, I don't have any information on them, I haven't even read any stories on them so I have no opinion on that matter.....yet.
</font> </font>[/QUOTE]Still knocking. This whole thread is about the people arrested in NEW YORK! It has nothing to do with X-Ray!

Remind me to give you some tips on Google :D

I never said you did. Just pointing out that the government is far from evenhanded in how they are protecting us from 'terrorists'. Since if the terrorist group is white and/or Christian they get full access to the legal system. But if they are not, then hello secret detentions.

First they came for the Muslims and I did not speak out because I was not a Muslim.

Sounds familiar?

<font color=deepskyblue>According to the NY Times article you quoted, <font color=tan>Timber</font>, the detainees DO have lawyers representing them. The gov't just isn't releasing the names of these legal counselors to the general public. The fact that legal representation is being provided was mentioned by representatives from both sides of the issue.</font>

<font color=deepskyblue>And if these detainees do have attorneys representing them, doesn't that imply that they have been charged with some type of crime?? I may be wrong about that, but if they aren't facing charges, then they technically shouldn't need legal counsel...should they? Let me know if that is a correct assumption or not.</font>

</font>[/QUOTE]Yo, magik read the first post again please, like others have mentioned this discussion is not about the x-ray detainees, but about arrests made on American soil by American law enforcement. We dont know how many actual citizens have been secretly arrested because they wont tell us anything about them.

Oh yeah...I find Irony on a case-by case-basis. ;)

The discussion quickly commingled NY detainees and Camp X-ray. We were discussing the apples with the oranges, so I got a bit mixed up.

They let this cat out of the bag...Damage control perhaps?

http://www.cnn.com/2003/LAW/06/19/alqaeda.plea/

The discussion quickly commingled NY detainees and Camp X-ray. We were discussing the apples with the oranges, so I got a bit mixed up. </font>[/QUOTE]<font color=deepskyblue>Fair enough. You're the legal expert here, not I. But it sounds to me as if the NY detainees ARE recieving "due process". It's just that the details of this process are being withheld from the general public. Personally, I don't see much wrong with that and I think the gov't voiced some legitimate concerns for keeping the information confidential.

Since Eric Robert Rudolph was mentioned, I will say that many of the same procedures are being followed in that case. The F.B.I., A.T.F., state, and local authorities are still combing the woods and searching various campsites he admitted to using...but other than a description of the general location of these campsites...no other information is being released to the public because it could interfere with the ongoing investigation. No details of items found, no names of friends or family that may have been brought in for questioning, no pertinent information at all. This is just S.O.P. for any ivestigation.</font>

<font face="COMIC Sans MS" size="3" color="#7c9bc4">
Well geez be a little accurate in your description. Those 700 people were not from New York...they were rounded up nation wide....good grief.... :rolleyes:
</font>

<font face="COMIC Sans MS" size="3" color="#7c9bc4">
Well geez be a little accurate in your description. Those 700 people were not from New York...they were rounded up nation wide....good grief.... :rolleyes:
</font> </font>[/QUOTE]And that makes it all ok!