Quote:
Originally posted by Cerek the Barbaric:
Donut - As far as accusing Magik of being "wrong again"...you've made a mistake or two yourself. In an earlier post, you asked Magik if we should deny the NY detainees their Constitutional rights just because some of them may not be U.S. Citizens...but as I pointed out to Timber, there is nothing in the article to suggest their rights are being violated. The detainees DO have access to legal counsel. This would seem to imply that they are also facing criminal charges that necessitate legal representation. The only thing the article is complaining about is that the names of the detainees and their lawyers are not being made public knowledge.
|
Actuall Cerek it was one of your esteemed Federal Appeal Court Judges that suggested that the detainess were not being given their constitutional rights.
"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."
I don't know if they are - because it's a secret! Shh!