Civil liberty

[Argus]

quote:

---

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.

---

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

[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?

[Argus]

quote:

---

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?

---

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

[Ronn_Bman]

quote:

---

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?

---

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.

[Ronn_Bman]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Magness:
Regarding civil rights, racial/ehtnic/nation profiling...

---

Excellent post! As was the follow up post

[Yorick]

quote:

---

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.

---

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.

[Mouse]

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!

[Silver Cheetah]

quote:

---

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]

---

Well said.

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

[Ronn_Bman]

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