Court Rules Detainee Names Can Remain Secret

Originally posted by Timber Loftis: 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.

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...

Originally posted by antryg: 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.

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.

[Rokenn]

Originally posted by MagiK: I was just goofing wit my first post, so here is a serious treatment...on one hand the libertarian in me says hmmm it could happen to me....on the other hand the I hate terrorists and people who associate with groups with links to terrorists says screw them. Seriously, if you are stupid enough to associate yourself in some way with one of these organizations..this is just a darwinian result.

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.

[Barry the Sprout]

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.

[Timber Loftis]

Originally posted by Rokenn: 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.

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]

Originally posted by Rokenn: quote: Originally posted by MagiK: I was just goofing wit my first post, so here is a serious treatment...on one hand the libertarian in me says hmmm it could happen to me....on the other hand the I hate terrorists and people who associate with groups with links to terrorists says screw them. Seriously, if you are stupid enough to associate yourself in some way with one of these organizations..this is just a darwinian result.

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. [/QUOTE]
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]

Originally posted by Barry the Sprout: 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. I do not recall saying that the scenario as shown in the television show was something I conceeded....I got pissed watching the episode, then realized that the whole issue had been skewed and distorted by the writers who tend to magnify and ....add to the story and not stick to the actual facts and events. I will also say that I have different levels of interest and or care for Citizens and non-citizens who abuse our generosity. I also know that the people who are being held..are being held not because they were normal every day people, but who were intimately tied to people I would like to see caught and executed. I think you missed the essence here...just like someone else Assumed that I am only against arabic terror groups.

Originally posted by Timber Loftis: 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. Now now you got too excited about your two supporters here...when they actually missed their marks...see my other statements... How will you like this law when Hilary Rodham is in office? [img]graemlins/1ponder.gif[/img] Fortunately for me I will never have to find out She will never and yes this is a prediction "She will Never win a US Presidential election" and will in fact suffer the worst defeat in history if she ever tries to run [img]smile.gif[/img] of course just an opinion there but one Im supremely at peace with [img]smile.gif[/img]

[Chewbacca]

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.

[Barry the Sprout]

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?