Do Suspects Have Rights?

[skywalker]

This is an editorial from the Detroit Free Press:

"Arrests, Secrecy

Even suspected terrorists deserve due process
November 2, 2001

For weeks now, civil liberties organizations have been asking the Department of Justice to release the names of and evidence against the nearly 1,100 people being held by the government since the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks.

With their requests unanswered, they have been reduced to suing the government under the Freedom of Information Act to get information about missing people that should have been made routinely available. This is a troubling development.

FBI investigations require some degree of secrecy, and the American public is giving the government wide latitude in pursuing terrorist threats. However, the government cannot keep secret whom they arrest, where they are being held, or the charges against them. Even suspected terrorists are protected by the Constitution, which says "No person shall be . . . deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law."

This week, Attorney General John Ashcroft rather dramatically stated that three Detroit-area men knew of the plans for the attack well in advance and did nothing to stop it. But because he neither elaborated nor offered evidence, the public has only his word to go on. Even the nation's top attorney has always been required to make a case, so the people can make sure the government doesn't abuse its power.

Bold statements that he'll round up anyone who so much as looks suspicious, just days after he issued dark threats that more terrorism is coming, make Ashcroft sound more like a vigilante than the chief lawyer for the world's greatest democracy.

The United States has long criticized other countries for human rights abuses, as it did when Argentine juntas made thousands of citizens simply disappear. The U.S. government cannot now afford to remain silent as it rounds up "suspects" in droves, unless it wants to hand the terrorists victory."


There are many things our government is doing to protect us because of this "War". The question is: Is it okay to trample on the rights of others to keep us safe? To keep potentially innocent people from their, families, jobs, and away from their very lives, because they look or are acting suspiciously is not what our country was built on. Some believe that just because a person looks like an Arab, they should be detained.

For example, a man who is clearly a Muslim is in line at an airport. He is nervous and sweating. Is he a terrorist or simply a person with a fear of flying. In most cases he would be detained and held for questioning. If the same person was a white man (don't get excited, I am white), would it cause the same result? Of course I don't have the answer.

An Arab-looking man was picked up and detained from a Costco store for buying $7000 worth of candy prior to Halloween. The manager and employees suspected foulplay and turned him in. The man is a distributer of candy to other stores and was buying it for his business. There is a notion that there is a terrorist behind every rock and he is exclusively Muslim or Arabic.

This is sad and there is a chance that some other group is doing the Anthrax Shuffle and hoping we will pin it on Muslims or Arabs.

This tends to make me feel like the terrorists are indeed winning this War and I'm not just talking about bin laden and his cronies.



------------------
Still The Most Humbly Prideful (?) Member Of The Illuminati!

Mark

[Ronn_Bman]

Originally posted by skywalker: Is it okay to trample on the rights of others to keep us safe? To keep potentially innocent people from their, families, jobs, and away from their very lives, because they look or are acting suspiciously is not what our country was built on.

I don't disagree with the entire idea of your post, but there has to be prioritization.

As I said in another post, the right "not to be killed" is the most important. In times of war, rules must bend for the greater good. Is this bad? Probably, but is it necessary? Absolutely!

Increasing homeland security at airports alone will require curtailing rights that two months ago would have had people up in arms. Some people are asking the questions that need to be asked as your article indicates. These things will be reviewed in court, but most importantly, when the American people believe things have gone too far, they will join the now small groups asking questions, and that will be that. These curtailed rights are currently deemed necessary be the majority, when that changes the government won't be able to continue.

Imagine two months ago seeing armed National Guardsmen in airports? Now people are complaining that we weren't doing enough then, and that we haven't upgraded security quickly enough since. Both are probably true to a degree, but this is a brand new situation.


------------------


"Your right to swing your fist ends where my nose begins."

[Ryanamur]

I understand the point to. I think that's why the President was so quick at calling it a war. In times of war most countries have by-passes for rights garanteed by the Constitution. Nonetheless, the right of life must still be upheld by those countries.

The way I see it is: Take away my freedoms if it will help me live longer! I would rather live in a police state than not live in a democracy!

Now, the people that were arrested or detained will eventually be brought to justice or release (only those that are guaranteed not to be terrorists). It's sad, but unfortunately, it's the way it is

Another thing. I find it funny that there's a difference in approach against prankster and terrorists when it comes to the Anthrax scare. Funny, but in my book, if you send sugar in an enveloppe, you are a terrorist and you should be dealt with as such. Wether it's a joke or not.

------------------
I'm the Wanderer without a clan... I bring justice without favorism. Though you may not agree with it, my judgement is final... and inconsequential

[Ronn_Bman]

Originally posted by Ryanamur: I find it funny that there's a difference in approach against prankster and terrorists when it comes to the Anthrax scare. Funny, but in my book, if you send sugar in an enveloppe, you are a terrorist and you should be dealt with as such. Wether it's a joke or not.

Absolutely, the only way people will stop thinking it's funny and understand the repercussions of their actions is if the punishment suits the crime.



------------------


"Your right to swing your fist ends where my nose begins."

[skywalker]

Sorry, but I respectfully disagree! Judging people by how the look has caused more trouble in history than it is worth. Racial profiling may be an effective tool, but it lowers the value of the diversity of the USA.

That said, as long as the ones rounding up the "usual" suspect are not missing the "normal" people doing the odd things and are not just picking on a certain "type" of person, that's fine.

To detain people and have not a shred of evidence smacks of human rights violation. After determining that some of these people are wholly innocent, a curt "We're sorry!" just doesn't cut it.

We say we will give up our freedoms to be safe, aren't we also saying we want sacrifice the freedoms of others for our safety?

I guess I should feel lucky that I am an average white American male, but in this case it makes me sad.

McVeigh was a good old American boy. We didn't sweep the USA search for more white radicals after the Oklahoma City bombing, did we? In fact, we started searching for Arab Terrorists right off the bat.

Yes, Bush was sly as a fox to call this a War!

------------------
Still The Most Humbly Prideful (?) Member Of The Illuminati!

Mark

[Ronn_Bman]

Originally posted by skywalker: We say we will give up our freedoms to be safe, aren't we also saying we want sacrifice the freedoms of others for our safety?

Yes, and I say it without any shame.

We just can't protect anyone's rights at the cost of the public safety. American's always strive for equality (we frequently fail), but if you believe everyone's life has equal value, then the life/inconvienences of one isn't as important as the lives/inconvienences of many.

The world we live in has become an even scarier place in the last two months. I wish there were easy answers, but there are not.



------------------


"Your right to swing your fist ends where my nose begins."

[Nith]

Suspects held in this situationd DO NOT HAVE RIGHTS. As they are terrorists they do not recieve p.o.w rights and will not recieve the miranda rights or any other American Right.

[skywalker]

I understand now, guilty until proven innocent!

[Ronn_Bman]

quote:

---

Originally posted by skywalker:
I understand now, guilty until proven innocent!

---

No, Nith takes the point a bit further than I would, but we do have to balance all aspects of the current situation.

Holding suspects longer than usual to protect life, in this special situation, isn't the same as assuming they are guilty, but if there is a possibility, then it must be fully explored to protect public safety.

As American's, we now know that public safety has to be given much more consideration. It's going to ruffle some feathers, but we are only now beginning to understand what the rest of the world has lived with for years.

[skywalker]

I then believe that all the average white people in America must be wholly pleased that they do not look different and are therefore protected by their civil rights in regards to the current terrorist situation.
[img]smile.gif[/img]