Court Rules Detainee Names Can Remain Secret

[Donut]

Originally posted by MagiK: quote: Originally posted by Donut: 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?

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?

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.
[/QUOTE]Still knocking. This whole thread is about the people arrested in NEW YORK! It has nothing to do with X-Ray!

[Donut]

Remind me to give you some tips on Google

[Rokenn]

Originally posted by MagiK: 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]

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?

[Cerek the Barbaric]

Originally posted by Timber Loftis: 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.

According to the NY Times article you quoted, Timber, 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.

Originally posted by Timber Loftis: 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. . . . 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."

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.

[Chewbacca]

Originally posted by MagiK: quote: Originally posted by 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. Not disagreeing or anything...but do you find everything he did, that other nations do ironic? Or just this one issue? Oh and by the way..he detained his own citizens for the most part....I don't thinkthats the case at X-ray 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. It might also be called an observation...or intelligence..or perhaps even (if you are in the right loop) common sense [img]smile.gif[/img]

[/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.

[Timber Loftis]

Originally posted by Cerek the Barbaric: 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.

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.

[Chewbacca]

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

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

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- An Ohio truck driver accused of plotting a terror attack on New York City's Brooklyn Bridge has agreed to plead guilty to providing material support to a terrorist organization, Attorney General John Ashcroft announced on Thursday. Ashcroft said Iyman Faris "appeared to be a hard-working truck driver," but traveled to Pakistan, met with Osama bin Laden in Afghanistan, and "joined al Qaeda's jihad against America." Under the plea agreement, Iyman Faris also will plead guilty to one count of conspiracy to provide material support to a terrorist organization, according to documents unsealed Thursday in U.S. District Court in Alexandria, Virginia. The charges together carry as much as 20 years in prison and up to $500,000 in fines. Al Qaeda leader Khalid Shaikh Mohammed, who is in U.S. custody, has told interrogators that Faris was ordered to perform surveillance of the Brooklyn Bridge with the ultimate goal of cutting its cables, sources told CNN. Ashcroft said Faris scouted potential terror targets from April 2002 to March 2003, and said he had provided al Qaeda with research on ultralight airplanes in early 2001. Ascroft also said Faris gave al Qaeda material support including "dealings involving cash, thousands of sleeping bags, plane tickets and cell phones." He was also allegedly involved in a plot to drive a truck loaded with explosives onto an airport tarmac to blow up a plane, sources said. Neither alleged plan was executed. The arrest of Faris and the plea deal, reached on May 1, was kept secret because of the sensitivity of the case, CNN has confirmed. Several government sources noted that the unusual step of keeping secret the detention, guilty plea and plea agreement has been used most often in organized crime cases. Prosecutors said that it can be crucial to keep secret from a crime boss the fact that a lower-level member of the criminal enterprise has been "turned" or "flipped." In Alexandria, U.S. District Court Judge Leonie Brinkema ordered the plea agreement unsealed shortly after noon Thursday, without explaining why. It was not immediately clear what information Faris may have provided, or what other arrests may have been made since Faris agreed to the plea deal.

[Cerek the Barbaric]

Originally posted by Timber Loftis: quote: Originally posted by Cerek the Barbaric: 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.

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. [/QUOTE]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.

Originally posted by Donut: Remind me to give you some tips on Google

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....

[Rokenn]

Originally posted by MagiK: quote: Originally posted by Donut: Remind me to give you some tips on Google

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....
[/QUOTE]And that makes it all ok!