The W
Views: 101382465
Main | FAQ | Search: Y! / G | Color chart | Log in for more!
18.12.07 0122
The 7 - Current Events & Politics - Security at the expense of freedom and liberty? Register and log in to post!
Pages: 1 2 Next(2090 newer) Next thread | Previous thread
User
Post (28 total)
TheBucsFan
TheChiefsFan
Level: 109

Posts: 1206/3428
EXP: 13807559
For next: 152131

Since: 2.1.02

Since last post: 128 days
Last activity: 128 days
#1 Posted on 12.7.02 1636.05
Reposted on: 12.7.09 1641.30

    RICHMOND, Va. (AP) - An American-born man who is being held incommunicado on suspicion of taking up arms for the Taliban was blocked by a federal appeals court Friday from consulting with a lawyer.
    A three-judge panel of the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals unanimously overturned a June 11 lower-court ruling that said Yaser Esam Hamdi could meet privately with federal public defenders.

    The appeals court said U.S. District Judge Robert G. Doumar issued his ruling without first giving the government a chance to respond.

    Hamdi, 21, was captured in Afghanistan in November after a prison uprising by Taliban and al-Qaida fighters. He was held at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, until it was discovered that he was born in Louisiana to Saudi Arabian parents. Since April, he has been held incomunicado at the Norfolk Naval Base as an enemy combatant.

    The appeals court was not swayed by the public defender's argument that Hamdi, as a U.S. citizen, has a constitutional right to legal representation.

    Prosecutors had argued on appeal that Hamdi might pass secret messages to other terrorists through his attorneys. They said he must be held behind bars for reasons of national security and to allow the government to gather intelligence from the war on terrorism from him.

    "We're pleased the court of appeals recognized that these matters have to be approached with great care," said Bryan Sierra, a Justice Department spokesman.

    Larry W. Shelton, an assistant federal public defender, said the defender's office has not decided on its next step.


So I guess the Constitution actually grants "unalienable rights-when the government wants them to be". I understand what they are saying by using the "national security" defense, but by doing that they are assuming the guy is guilty, not just suspected. And that seems to go against "innocent until proven guilty." Any accused criminal can forward information to a lawyer. Granted, maybe not as widespread as an international terrorist, but still the argument would hold no substance in any other criminal case and it doesn't in this one. No matter his nationality or background, this guy has a right to see a lawyer and have a fair trial without being prejudged just like anyone else in this country. But he is being denied both.
Promote this thread!
Jaguar
Knackwurst
Level: 107

Posts: 609/3273
EXP: 12852680
For next: 238673

Since: 23.1.02
From: Phoenix, AZ

Since last post: 254 days
Last activity: 55 days
#2 Posted on 12.7.02 2032.26
Reposted on: 12.7.09 2037.58
Yeah, but you know what's REALLY scary?

I agree with Test.

America sucks.

-Jag

Next thing you know I might even cheer "Go Test go!" at a PPV, or something similar....
OlFuzzyBastard
Knackwurst
Level: 103

Posts: 127/3036
EXP: 11366255
For next: 105190

Since: 28.4.02
From: Pittsburgh, PA

Since last post: 6 days
Last activity: 2 days
AIM:  
#3 Posted on 12.7.02 2059.58
Reposted on: 12.7.09 2111.40
Yeah, I've felt really conflicted about that whole angle, too... I mean, I love this country, but right now, it's really hard to defend our leaders.
PalpatineW
Lap cheong
Level: 77

Posts: 256/1528
EXP: 4108877
For next: 82271

Since: 2.1.02
From: Getting Rowdy

Since last post: 2885 days
Last activity: 2728 days
AIM:  
#4 Posted on 12.7.02 2104.43
Reposted on: 12.7.09 2118.49
Before we get all doom and gloom, here, the guy IS an enemy combatant. He is also an American citizen. We have different rules for each. Clearly, uh, the issue isn't clear. It's not like we picked this guy out of his apartment in Detroit, though. We captured him IN AFGHANISTAN, so I have to think he was doing something he shouldn't be doing. Like plotting to blow up Americans.
TheBucsFan
TheChiefsFan
Level: 109

Posts: 1207/3428
EXP: 13807559
For next: 152131

Since: 2.1.02

Since last post: 128 days
Last activity: 128 days
#5 Posted on 12.7.02 2126.10
Reposted on: 12.7.09 2129.08

    Originally posted by PalpatineW
    Before we get all doom and gloom, here, the guy IS an enemy combatant.


You mean ACCUSED enemy combatant. He was found in Afghanastan, but it hasn't been proven yet that he plotted against America.
OlFuzzyBastard
Knackwurst
Level: 103

Posts: 128/3036
EXP: 11366255
For next: 105190

Since: 28.4.02
From: Pittsburgh, PA

Since last post: 6 days
Last activity: 2 days
AIM:  
#6 Posted on 12.7.02 2211.34
Reposted on: 12.7.09 2213.04
And besides, what about the "dirty bomber"? He was an American citizen, captured in America, without ever actually commiting a crime, who's being held without bail, without access to a lawyer and will not be recieving a trial. The government can do that to anyone they consider a terrorist, thanks to the "patriot" act. And what, pray tell, makes someone a terrorist? Why, having John Ashcroft say you are, of course...

And, by the way, that was a brilliant piece of investigation by our government there, wasn't it? You've got this guy, who allegedly was in contact with Al Queda (and let's assume he really was.) Now, he's planning to build a bomb - he hasn't actually done so, and most accounts say he lacks the intellect to sucessfully do so. Meaning, he's not an immediate threat. Meaning - WATCH THIS GUY UNTIL HE LEADS YOU TO SOMEONE IMPORTANT!

Jeebus, maybe Hogan should've run in 2000...
PalpatineW
Lap cheong
Level: 77

Posts: 260/1528
EXP: 4108877
For next: 82271

Since: 2.1.02
From: Getting Rowdy

Since last post: 2885 days
Last activity: 2728 days
AIM:  
#7 Posted on 12.7.02 2312.00
Reposted on: 12.7.09 2322.54
So, if we find a guy who hangs out with Al Qaeda and has plans for a dirty bomb in his office, we should... let him go, because he's not (yet) a criminal? Come on, this isn't 1984. Ashcroft isn't pointing the finger of accusation at every other American. From what coverage we've seen, it seems to me that we aren't imprisoning any innocent people. I don't think innocent people hang around with militant Islamic terrorist organizations. Hanging around with Al Qaeda for reasons other than committing terrorist acts is about as likely as reading Swank for the articles. Anyone who consorts with terrorists or plots terrorist acts has surrendered his rights, as far as I'm concerned. America doesn't need to coddle those who wish to destroy her, and us.






TheBucsFan
TheChiefsFan
Level: 109

Posts: 1208/3428
EXP: 13807559
For next: 152131

Since: 2.1.02

Since last post: 128 days
Last activity: 128 days
#8 Posted on 12.7.02 2332.03
Reposted on: 12.7.09 2332.30
    Originally posted by PalpatineW
    So, if we find a guy who hangs out with Al Qaeda and has plans for a dirty bomb in his office, we should... let him go, because he's not (yet) a criminal? Come on, this isn't 1984. Ashcroft isn't pointing the finger of accusation at every other American. From what coverage we've seen, it seems to me that we aren't imprisoning any innocent people. I don't think innocent people hang around with militant Islamic terrorist organizations. Hanging around with Al Qaeda for reasons other than committing terrorist acts is about as likely as reading Swank for the articles. Anyone who consorts with terrorists or plots terrorist acts has surrendered his rights, as far as I'm concerned. America doesn't need to coddle those who wish to destroy her, and us.









You see, that's the problem. You're assuming that because they hang around with certain people they are criminals. The law cannot generalize like that. And you are correct. We shouldn't arrest people who are "not (yet) criminals".

EDIT: One more thing. I'm assuming when you say "coverage" you are referring to the mainstream American media and the American Government. Neither one of those are the most reliable sources if you want a news piece instead of a piece of propaganda.

(edited by TheBucsFan on 13.7.02 0234)
Jaguar
Knackwurst
Level: 107

Posts: 610/3273
EXP: 12852680
For next: 238673

Since: 23.1.02
From: Phoenix, AZ

Since last post: 254 days
Last activity: 55 days
#9 Posted on 13.7.02 0034.06
Reposted on: 13.7.09 0036.25
OlFuzzyBastard was trying to say that he thinks they should've left the dirty bomber under surveillance until A) He actually DID something illegal, or B) Lead them to someone who was higher up on the terrorist food chain. This is pretty standard stuff here, but the guy wasn't even reported that he was planning a "Dirty Bomb" until a month after he was arrested. So either the government has been feeding us a line of bullshit (If Coca-Cola can do it, so can they) or they just grabbed him to say "Look! We caught a terrorist! Trust us!" and only THEN found out that he was planning to build the "Dirty Bomb"

-Jag
OlFuzzyBastard
Knackwurst
Level: 103

Posts: 129/3036
EXP: 11366255
For next: 105190

Since: 28.4.02
From: Pittsburgh, PA

Since last post: 6 days
Last activity: 2 days
AIM:  
#10 Posted on 13.7.02 0610.47
Reposted on: 13.7.09 0619.37
I don't give a fuck what you're accused of doing. This is the United States of America. If you're accused of a crime, no matter how horrible a crime that is, you get a lawyer and you get a trial. I can't believe I actually have to argue this point with people.
EastCoastAvenger
Bockwurst
Level: 49

Posts: 331/536
EXP: 853472
For next: 30417

Since: 4.1.02
From: Clearwater, FL

Since last post: 2048 days
Last activity: 7 hours
#11 Posted on 13.7.02 2016.22
Reposted on: 13.7.09 2019.42
Ol Fuzzy, you're arguing the point with the wrong people. Then again, it's best to argue it with us because arguing it with these government agencies will net you one of two results: You get ignored, or you disappear/die mysteriously/"commit suicide" via three gunshotwounds to the back of your head. Welcome to U.S.A. 2000, where our federal government no longer bothers to pretend to obey its own Constitution. That's the reality of the situation now, and that's why not much is going to be said or done about this situation.
Zeruel
Thirty Millionth Hit
Moderator
Level: 131

Posts: 565/5235
EXP: 26056615
For next: 368075

Since: 2.1.02
From: The Silver Spring in the Land of Mary.

Since last post: 7 days
Last activity: 1 day
#12 Posted on 14.7.02 0024.58
Reposted on: 14.7.09 0026.43
wait...so if someone hanged around the Nazi's back during WW2, you couldn't accuse him of being a nazi?

i know it is wrong for putting guilt on association, but come on...

heres how i understand how afganastand was working.

Taliban ruled the country, and basically being in afganastand, you had to work for either the Taliban, or one of the anti-taliban forces trying to oust them...

i assume he was w/ the taliban forces

but, of course, i may be wrong
Jaguar
Knackwurst
Level: 107

Posts: 616/3273
EXP: 12852680
For next: 238673

Since: 23.1.02
From: Phoenix, AZ

Since last post: 254 days
Last activity: 55 days
#13 Posted on 14.7.02 0104.07
Reposted on: 14.7.09 0106.51
Just because I live in the US doesn't make me a part of the US military, nor does it make me a part of Bush's Cabinet. So hopefully I won't be held by another government just because I an American citizen. But even worse than that is the fact that this guy IS and American citizen. While I don't agree with what the US is doing with people suspected of being terrorists of other nationalities, I think that even Joe American should be outraged that an American Citizen is being held without a trial or counsel or anything. Hell, Timothy McVeigh got a trial, and I bet that if they ever found Eric Rudolph, he would've gotten a trial. So what's the difference here? Is it just because Timmy and Eric were Psychopathic, Terrorist, Average White Americans?

-Jaguar
TheBucsFan
TheChiefsFan
Level: 109

Posts: 1215/3428
EXP: 13807559
For next: 152131

Since: 2.1.02

Since last post: 128 days
Last activity: 128 days
#14 Posted on 14.7.02 0148.20
Reposted on: 14.7.09 0159.01

    Originally posted by rikidozan
    wait...so if someone hanged around the Nazi's back during WW2, you couldn't accuse him of being a nazi?


You can accuse anyone of anything you want. But America still has rights guarunteed to the accused, which are going overlooked in this case.
Zeruel
Thirty Millionth Hit
Moderator
Level: 131

Posts: 571/5235
EXP: 26056615
For next: 368075

Since: 2.1.02
From: The Silver Spring in the Land of Mary.

Since last post: 7 days
Last activity: 1 day
#15 Posted on 14.7.02 0732.37
Reposted on: 14.7.09 0738.03
timmy and eric weren't with forces of a nation that declared war on us

but that argument only works if you accept that the taliban was the government of afganstand....
vsp
Andouille
Level: 87

Posts: 350/2042
EXP: 6347262
For next: 45537

Since: 3.1.02
From: Philly

Since last post: 3089 days
Last activity: 303 days
#16 Posted on 15.7.02 1319.00
Reposted on: 15.7.09 1319.18

    Originally posted by PalpatineW

    So, if we find a guy who hangs out with Al Qaeda and has plans for a dirty bomb in his office, we should... let him go, because he's not (yet) a criminal? Come on, this isn't 1984. Ashcroft isn't pointing the finger of accusation at every other American.



But he CAN, and he doesn't seem to believe that there's any reason why he can't, which is entirely the point.

The administration can point their fingers at Person X, say the magic words "enemy combatant" and *POOF!* He'll disappear into custody with no presumption of innocence, no jury trial, no lawyers, no family visits, no contact with the outside world, no Constitutional rights. When will he be released? When the government says so. When will he be allowed to confront his accuser, present his side of the story in a court of law, and exercise his rights as an American citizen? When (no, IF) the government says so. What evidence is there that he is and has done what the government claims? The government's say-so.

Anyone who doesn't find that the least bit objectionable scares the living hell out of me.
CRZ
Big Brother
Administrator
Level: 214

Posts: 1011/16398
EXP: 144817933
For next: 907487

Since: 9.12.01
From: ミネアポリス

Since last post: 11 hours
Last activity: 56 min.
AIM:  
ICQ:  
Y!:
#17 Posted on 15.7.02 1406.37
Reposted on: 15.7.09 1417.12

    Originally posted by vsp
    The administration can point their fingers at Person X, say the magic words "enemy combatant" and *POOF!* He'll disappear into custody with no presumption of innocence, no jury trial, no lawyers, no family visits, no contact with the outside world, no Constitutional rights. When will he be released? When the government says so. When will he be allowed to confront his accuser, present his side of the story in a court of law, and exercise his rights as an American citizen? When (no, IF) the government says so. What evidence is there that he is and has done what the government claims? The government's say-so.

    Anyone who doesn't find that the least bit objectionable scares the living hell out of me.

If you can't use common sense to see the difference between your "Person X" and Yaser Esam Hamdi, then I'M scared of YOU. Extrapolating the general from the specific doesn't always work, especially when doomsday scenarios are presented.

That these three Appeals court judges - *judges*, not "the government" or "the administration" - ultimately validated the decision is good enough for me. If you have no faith in the checks and balances of our government, I can't help you ever be happy with America.

Comrades, eventually one has to drop the cynicism and hold fast to the belief that at the core of the system reside Americans who are people of good conscience acting in the best interests of the nation. Life is too short and stress-filled as it is to make assumptions otherwise.

(Credit: Story quoted in the original thread starter)
BoromirMark
Potato korv
Level: 54

Posts: 37/690
EXP: 1230110
For next: 3767

Since: 8.5.02
From: Milan-Ann Arbor, MI

Since last post: 327 days
Last activity: 327 days
AIM:  
#18 Posted on 16.7.02 0013.40
Reposted on: 16.7.09 0028.07
Quite simply, yes. Security at the expense of "personal rights" (not freedom, freedom used in this issue is merely hyperbole for those against the security measures) is more than acceptable, because you sure can't have privacy when you're dead or enslaved now can you? Logic, people, not whining.

Edit: Remind me to read the last post in a thread before posting. Kudos to your post, CRZ. People need to have more faith in the government and our system, and stop whining. I'm sure people weren't dancing in the streets when Teapot Dome happened, but guess what? America moved on.

(edited by BoromirMark on 16.7.02 0115)
TheBucsFan
TheChiefsFan
Level: 109

Posts: 1221/3428
EXP: 13807559
For next: 152131

Since: 2.1.02

Since last post: 128 days
Last activity: 128 days
#19 Posted on 16.7.02 0057.20
Reposted on: 16.7.09 0059.05
OK, while it may seem like common sense to have these precautions for (perceived potential) security risks, that is not the issue (to me). If our country was founded on "rights that are guaranteed, unless we think it's too big a risk to give you those rights," there would be no problem (Even that would be questionable, because who's to say what's a risk and what isn't, but I can overlook that for now.). But our county was founded on the principals of (among others) "inalienable rights" and "innocent until proven guilty" and those promises are being broken here. CRZ, you point out that these actions are being supported by our court system, but that doesn't validate it. It just means the courts-which exist for the sole purpose of interpreting the Constitution-are ignoring promises made by the people who founded this nation simply because they feel threatened.

You call it acting in the best interests of the nation. That is only true if they are doing this to convicted criminals, not people who are widely suspected-and, I'll admit, probably guilty-because then it just turns into finger pointing that makes everyone look like a hypocrite. The law cannot differentiate between vsp's "Person X" and this guy, because in the eyes of the law both are innocent right now.
OlFuzzyBastard
Knackwurst
Level: 103

Posts: 144/3036
EXP: 11366255
For next: 105190

Since: 28.4.02
From: Pittsburgh, PA

Since last post: 6 days
Last activity: 2 days
AIM:  
#20 Posted on 16.7.02 0910.47
Reposted on: 16.7.09 0912.03
Do people still understand the fact that the reason everyone keeps saying this is the greatest country on the planet *isn't* because of that swell looking flag you have hanging off the back of your SUV, but because of the freedoms that are guaranteed to EVERYONE in this fucking country? Why do I feel like the dissenters are the only real patriots left?
Pages: 1 2 NextThread ahead: Sell! Sell! By God Sell!
Next thread: Loaded COCKpit
Previous thread: Lindh Admits Guilt to Two Charges
(2090 newer) Next thread | Previous thread
The 7 - Current Events & Politics - Security at the expense of freedom and liberty?Register and log in to post!

The W™ message board - 7 year recycle

ZimBoard
©2001-2014 Brothers Zim
This old hunk of junk rendered your page in 0.203 seconds.