Court Rules Detainee Names Can Remain Secret

[Davros]

Originally posted by Rokenn: quote: 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! [/QUOTE]No of course it does not.

These are just the early steps towards the sort of police state syndrome that ruled in the Eastern European nations during the cold war period. Hopefully it gets highlighted, the power of the people reacts, and the flow on effect arrested before it goes too far.

All hail the Google King [img]graemlins/thumbsup.gif[/img]

[Donut]

Originally posted by MagiK: 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....

Here's what I said:

"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."

You can roll your eyes all you want - you can't blame me just because you were wrong again!

[Cerek the Barbaric]

Originally posted by Donut: quote: Originally posted by MagiK: 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....

Here's what I said:

"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."

You can roll your eyes all you want - you can't blame me just because you were wrong again! [/QUOTE]{Cerek steps in and throws a large bucket of cold water on Donut and Magik}

There now....let's step back and take a breather for a moment. Magik - I don't know what made you think the article referred to the detainees at Guantanamo Bay. I didn't see anything there to indicate that myself, so I have to agree with the others that that is a separate issue from this particular discussion.

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.

Sorry, but there is no part of the U.S. Constitution that requires the gov't to provide "full disclosure" of an ongoing investigation. The substance of the article suggests that these detainees are facing charges and they do have attorneys representing them in the face of these charges...so there is no implied "denial of Constitutional rights".

Now then, let's ALL try to get back to arguing the points of the discussion rather than the attacking the people participating.

[Donut]

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!

[Moiraine]

Originally posted by MagiK: quote: Originally posted by Timber Loftis: THE FIRST JUDICIALLY-APPROVED SECRET JAILING. I am not cynical or sarcastic. I am seriously worried. Jailing people without levelling charges??? They can do it to you, too. Ok [img]smile.gif[/img] 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.

[/QUOTE]Forgive me for digging out an early post, as I just came in here. [img]smile.gif[/img]

Consider for one minute the following scenario, OK ? Suppose I am your neighbour, and for some reason I have a grudge against you. Suppose I call the police and tell them I've lately seen suspicious people coming to your house. Suppose then the police comes and takes you away and detains you for a certain amount of time - until you can PROVE you have done nothing wrong, if you can prove it ... When you at last come back home, you think your troubles are over but you'll soon hear people whispering "Well, surely he has done something, no smoke without a fire eh ?" ...

You would think this scenario far fetched, wouldn't you ? Well, something similar happened in Frence a few months ago : a guy was arrested because supposedly he had been seen setting a bomb in an airport - turned out that it was his family-in-law who had payed a retired military man to put lots of weapons in his car so the police would believe he was a terrorist. He spent a full month in jail. His name is Abdelrazak Besseghir - he is sort of "ethnically incorrect" too, which didn't help ...

EDIT : About your "one last thought" : may I respectfully remind you that there are no such things as several human races on earth nowadays ? Last time two human races cohabited on earth was 35 000 years ago, when the last Neanderthal human died - and we are not even sure he was a different specie, only the fact that there is no trace of his genetical material in us tends to suggest there could not be Sapiens-Neanderthal children, which is what defines the word "specie". [img]smile.gif[/img]

[ 06-20-2003, 10:23 AM: Message edited by: Moiraine ]

[Night Stalker]

Originally posted by Moiraine: Consider for one minute the following scenario, OK ? Suppose I am your neighbour, and for some reason I have a grudge against you. Suppose I call the police and tell them I've lately seen suspicious people coming to your house. Suppose then the police comes and takes you away and detains you for a certain amount of time - until you can PROVE you have done nothing wrong, if you can prove it ... When you at last come back home, you think your troubles are over but you'll soon hear people whispering "Well, surely he has done something, no smoke without a fire eh ?" ... You would think this scenario far fetched, wouldn't you ? Well, something similar happened in Frence a few months ago : a guy was arrested because supposedly he had been seen setting a bomb in an airport - turned out that it was his family-in-law who had payed a retired military man to put lots of weapons in his car so the police would believe he was a terrorist. He spent a full month in jail. His name is Abdelrazak Besseghir - he is sort of "ethnically incorrect" too, which didn't help ... EDIT : About your "one last thought" : may I respectfully remind you that there are no such things as several human races on earth nowadays ? Last time two human races cohabited on earth was 35 000 years ago, when the last Neanderthal human died - and we are not even sure he was a different specie, only the fact that there is no trace of his genetical material in us tends to suggest there could not be Sapiens-Neanderthal children, which is what defines the word "specie". [img]smile.gif[/img]

Hey You! Welcome Back! [img]graemlins/happywave.gif[/img]

This is just the thing that the 4th, 8th, and 9th Ammendments are supposed to prevent. It's a shame that the Patriot Act got passedfor it violates the Bill of Rights - all in the name of "National Security". This country is heading toward a BadThing^TM.

Note: I am a defender of this nation, but some of these trends disturb me.

[Chewbacca]

What about Bail for these people? Do they get a bail hearing?

Do they get their own lawyers or are they goverment issued?

How many have been sent to Camp X-ray?

Do they get visits with family?

I would imagine they are segregated from other prisoners in order to keep secrecy. Have they been in solitary all this time?

What standards are used to arrest these people? Does a judge issue a warrant?

How often are they given deep cavity searchs? Is sleep deprivation and loud, unrelentless heavy metal music part of their interogation process?

How many have attempted suicide like the ones at x-ray?

How many have died in custody? How did they die?

How many will eventually be let go?

How many have actually had charges filed against them. I know the so called patriot act gives the goverment broad detention powers with out need of formal charges filed.

How many more questions could I have?

[Cerek the Barbaric]

Originally posted by Donut: Actually 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!

Yes, Donut, one of the three judges suggested that...the other two judges disagreed. That is far from "conclusive proof" that their Constitutional rights are being violated...in fact, it suggests the opposite.

[Davros]

Statistically speaking Cerek, a two to one ratio over a large sample size (say 200+ people) would "suggest" that the case for one side is more compelling than the other. A two to one ratio in a sample size of three is very simply "not statistically significant" and is NOT indicative that a compelling case exists for either argument. Efectively it came down to one man's opinion, and from previous reports of your court system, political appointments in the judiciary tend to flow along with favourable judgements for administrations.

If we were conducting a hypothesis test,the hypothesis of "The civil rights of the detainees have not been abused and due process has been followed" would fail the test.

Just thought it worth challenging you on this detail ole pal.

[Cerek the Barbaric]

LOL - no problem, Davros [img]graemlins/laugh3.gif[/img]

I admit I was getting "too caught up" in the argument of specific points and not looking at the overall picture. While I am not as upset over this incident as some of the other members, I agree that it is good to question the gov't and their motives for these actions.

I'm not convinced that the detainees have had any of their rights violated...and some of the members erroneously stated that they were being denied legal counsel when the article clearly stated this wasn't the case.

Donut took the opinion of the one dissenting judge and presented it as fact to Magik. I called him on that when he accused Magik of being wrong again. I admit that was a tad "nit-picky" on my part as well, I'm just trying to keep everyone honost and focused on actual facts - rather than suppositions and inuendoes.

Now you have rightly challenged my own assertions. Fair for the goose is fair for the gander.