posted on June 10, 2002 10:08:05 PM new
Borillar, building a dirty bomb is a job skill? Interesting idea.
This is a military matter and don't expect Rumsfeld to tell everyone what information he has. So they are holding the guy for a month? Duh, he's a TERRORIST!
posted on June 10, 2002 10:20:10 PM new
Kraftdinner
A story was recently reported that the White House staff were all treated with the anthrax drug cipro, starting 9/11.That is before any anthrax cases were reported. The postal employees who died after contacting anthrax were given no drugs and there is now a suit on their behalf.
There was a news report suggesting that this publicity about the arrest of Abdullah al-Mujahir was announced today in order to divert the negative attention that this current anthrax story would have on the Bush administration and the allegation that he knew about the pending terrorism and possible bioterrorism.
The suspect has been held for over a month without any charge or lawyer. The question is why did they choose to wait until today to reveal this story?
Diversion is just one possible answer.
Antiquary and Snowyegret and I were discussing the anthrax story last night. Antiquary posted the article and it's in one of the recent threads.
posted on June 10, 2002 10:22:07 PM new
REAMOND, the issue here for me is that ANY Citizen gets their U.S. Constitutional Rights stripped away from them without Due Process. Hell, John Gotti was probably responsible for more murders than we know of, and was proved to have been in charge of a large crime family, and yet, no one took away HIS Constitutional Rights! What is it that makes this guy different?
I know that you might quote and say that we are supposedly at War with Al-Queda. OK, putting aside the illegitimacy of Bush's War, this guy is clearly a non-combatant. If, say you went to France and got military training and then eventually went back home - is that a crime? And if later on, America goes to War with France and a captured Colonel remembers you and points you out, does the United States have the right to come kick in your door, arrest you without charges, jail you without a lawyer, strip you of all of your Constitutional rights for an indefinite period on the grounds that you *might* do something? I think not.
Now, the ONLY case according to the Constitution where you can lose your Constitutional rights is in a case of TREASON. And that means that you have to be CHARGED with the crime - this guy clearly hasn't. Regardless if the federal Supreme Court gives it its blessings later on, it does not sanctify the lack of legality of it.
And the argument that information came out in the trial that was used by Al-Queda - that was the fault of the intelligence agency divulging the information, the Prosecution, and the presiding Judge; as such information can always be SEALED and Jurors instructed at how UNPLESANT it is to be charged with TREASON if they mention a word of it. It's been successfully done before on many an occasion, this is not an excuse to strip this Citizen of his Rights.
That's just the short-view.
Remember how not to long ago, we here in the RT were arguing about the rights of those detainees in Gitmo Bay? It was said then on several occasions, that if we do not fight to obtain the rights of those detainees, that the next step was to strip the rights of an American Citizen in the name of this War? And after that, it would be a short haul to nobody having any more rights and that was when I said that by the time that the next Presidential Election rolls around, we won't be allowed to vote!
posted on June 10, 2002 10:25:05 PM newattended the foreign military training of his choice with job skills, and simply to be pointed out by a captured suspect?
Im sorry, but that phrase just made me gawk at my screen in unbelief. JOB SKILLS? SIMPY? Cell mates rat on each other all the time and their "pointing out" is used by the prosecutor every time. "Attended a foreign military training"???? This man studied to KILL PEOPLE and was ratted on by someone who knows just what he studied for and planned! I swear...words fail me. Well, they dont, but I dont know how to phrase them just yet.
posted on June 10, 2002 10:25:35 PM new
OOoooooo! That's a GOOD observation and reassoning, Helen! Wish I'd thought of that! Why NOW? right? Obvious once its explained.
posted on June 10, 2002 10:30:01 PM new
Hepburn, everyday, men and women in America learn how to kill people in cold blood. To make it worse, these people are being trained by the most highly technological and sophisticated group in the world: the U.S. Millitary. I guess we'd better go round them all up and deny them THEIR rights so we can all sleep safer at night!
Yes, JOB SKILLS. We teach our young how to work with nuclear weapons and materials, train them how to make all kinds of nasty weapons from nasty materials in the dead of night to deploy upon an enemy. Those are also quiantly referred to as "Job Skills" by the millitary. So just because it was millitary training in a foreign country, why isn't it the same thing?
posted on June 10, 2002 10:33:18 PM new
Then I guess you could say that the terrorists who slammed in the WTC were just doing their preferred job in skills they trained for and those who died were just in the wrong place at the wrong time. Right?
posted on June 10, 2002 10:37:37 PM new
I was about 8 years old when Joe McCarthy was finally exposed as a fraud and a nutcase and The House Committee on Unamerican Activities was shut down. I didn't understand too much of what was happening from the news reports then except that communists were very bad people, dangerous even. So when I was reading a leaflet that I had picked up from a stack at a store my Dad and I had gone to one day, I was horrified to see Lucile Ball's name under a listing of Known Communists. My parents were sensible and independent people who assuaged my horror and reassured me that it was perfectly safe to continue to love Lucy. But from time to time I would think of that list and wonder how in the world her name came to be there.
When I was a little older and begin to learn generally about what happened during the Red Scare, as it came to be called, as well as discovering the wonderful world of irony, I conjectured that it must have been the hair color. That seemed about as reasonable as the basis for most of the accusations. It wasn't until I was much older and reading a biography of Lucile Ball that I discovered the charges were based upon the fact that her father had once joined a union which had several members who also belonged to the American Communist Party. He had never even been active in the union and was not a political person, as Lucy herself was not. She did go through a lot of hell during that time, though she was not destoyed or as seriously damaged as others. So I finally discovered the answer to why Lucile Ball was a "known Communist" and I remember feeling grateful that as a society we would never allow such a thing to occur again.
posted on June 10, 2002 10:50:22 PM new
Hepburn, everyday, men and women in America learn how to kill people in cold blood. To make it worse, these people are being trained by the most highly technological and sophisticated group in the world: the U.S. Millitary. I guess we'd better go round them all up and deny them THEIR rights so we can all sleep safer at night!
Yes, JOB SKILLS. We teach our young how to work with nuclear weapons and materials, train them how to make all kinds of nasty weapons from nasty materials in the dead of night to deploy upon an enemy. Those are also quiantly referred to as "Job Skills" by the millitary. So just because it was millitary training in a foreign country, why isn't it the same thing?
You all know I struggle to get my thoughts out, so bear with me. Those who slammed into WTC were people who deliberately killed innocent people who have nothing to do with wars elsewhere. Those who tried to save them also died, and their jobs were to protect and serve. If people are trained in "job skills" to kill during an act of war, hence to "kill the enemy", then why did the terrorists target civilians? We didnt ask them to come use us as said target practice. Those people werent bearing arms to attack and pillage villages in another country. It ISNT the same thing to me, Borillar. Anyone who is affiliated with terrorists, regardless of whether they are american citizens or from the moon HAVE no rights.
Brain is scrambling to get thoughts straight, so I have to figure out how to word them where they make sense.
posted on June 11, 2002 12:17:29 AM newSo just because it was millitary training in a foreign country, why isn't it the same thing?
Well, for one thing, they're TERRORISTS! Remember Al-Queida, the World Trade Center? The person you are discussing is for all intents and purposes at war with the U.S.
posted on June 11, 2002 01:28:11 AM new
Bor- When I say that these prisoners must have a FAIR hearing, that is short hand for both procedural and substantive due process.
So far the alleged illegal aliens have been granted a sort of back handed procedural due process in that their hearings may not be secret unles the govt shows cause for each individual case.
Regarding your example of an US citizen joining the French army. First, your example of the govts involved were not at war, there wouldn't be a citizenship problem- at one time there was a stripping of citizenship if an American fought for a foreign government without permission, but that changed as the concept of dual citizenship came into being. Now you may fight for a foreign govt if it is determined that the govt is not hostile to the US.
When you say "later" on America and France go to war, how much later ? The situation we have now is a war that has been going on with al Qaeda even before 9-11. They had blown up a navy ship and several embassies prior to 9-11 and bombed the WTC in 1996. Because this war is ongoing and the suspect was implicated in future acts of terrorism, not just identified as a former "soldier", it would not be equivilent to your example.
It is not clear that this person is a "non-combantant". I have no qualms about stripping his citizenship if he did in fact conspire with al Qaeda to commit acts of terror against the US. If that is established, I wouldn't bat an eye at turning him over to the military for summary execution, that goes for John Walker too.
There is no way to present evidence in a criminal trial that would conceal how the govt got the evidence, unless the trial is secret, and the defendant can not see the evidence or cross examine the witnesses presenting the evidence. Even a dull wiited attorney knows that he can ask certain questions in cross examination that will indirectly reveal intellegence sources. That is why many cases that deal with national security are pled out.
You do not lose your Constitutional rights when accused of commiting treason. In fact Treason requires a higher standard of evidence than any other crime - the testimony of at least two witnesses to the act(s) of treason. You can be convicted of murder and executed based solely on circumstantial evidence, but conviction of Treason, which carries the death penalty, requires two witnesses to the act of treason.
Were this recent action by the govt some random police action I might be concerned. however, the govt has stated probable cause, which is all it takes in time of peace to arrest anyone.
However, the cause for concern should lie in whether the govt proves its case, and does so under our standards of justice.
All that requires is that it is proved beyond a reasonable doubt that this person did conspire with al Qaeda to commit acts of terrorism against the US. Once that is accomplished, summary military firing squad is just fine and dandy. Under these circumstances I wouldn't feel my rights were in any jepordy.
posted on June 11, 2002 02:47:29 AM new
If there were a clear cut conspiracy at foot then the arrest of this person would be warranted of course. Detain him without bail if it can be shown that he is a danger if released or if it is demonstrated that he would be unnlikely to appear and meet the requirements for bail. But that's not what they're saying. The statements by Horowitz (whatever) were some of the most ambiguous I've seen from a public official when asked direct questions. He said that it appears that a discussion took place but they did not know to what depth the dicussion proceeded. He said that they had come to think that a plan was at foot to attack in the DC area because things that this person has said indicated a knowledge of the DC area. There were a host of fearmongering type statements that had little or no substance in fact as presented.
Now really, how is that a crime? A discussion was the word carefully chosen; not 'plan', not 'conspiracy', not 'plot'.
Too, in the short course of the day there have been alterations to the storyline. At first there were 'several' contiguous sources, but later there is but one.
That one source should be a suspicious one to anyone versed in TV crime drama - he's the prison fink, telling any sort of story his captors may want him to tell in the vain hope of improving his situation.
In the morning the announcement of this detainment was all quite exciting because Ashcroft presented it in a sort of emergency announcement, from Moscow no less, as though it had gone down only moments before. But it turns out that they've had this guy under wraps for a month? At the least it should be obvious that this is little more than an opportunistic media event, and we might wonder how many more rabbits they have to pull out of their hat when things aren't going their way in other arenas.
So they play fun and games called lets fool all of the people all of the time. But this time they've gone over the line. No matter the what ifs and whys, they have done to this guy what should never be done to any citizen of the United States of America. Our country was founded on a list of preventative measures to assure that our government would never again be able to do what has been done here and now.
posted on June 11, 2002 07:20:05 AM new
Ashcroft said "appears". We arent being told everything and since the government does classified things all the time, they arent telling more because they want to gather more "suspects". Maybe it involves being sure the evidence is secured before going more into detail to the public. Maybe the guy has been under wraps because others ARE involved and they needed time to save other lives at stake of the cronies still out there. Lots of maybes.
But if they let him go, or didnt even bother to arrest him without a solid "case" some folks would have all kinds of complaints and bad points to make about the CIA, the FBI, Bush, if this SOB set off a bomb and they DIDNT do anything to stop it even though they had "warning signs" or the public was told they "knew" about it beforehand...just like the scuttlebutt going on right now about the FBI and CIA about the plane flyers.
Damned if they do. Damned if they dont.
posted on June 11, 2002 07:58:30 AM new
But the esteemed Republican senator Arlan Spectre said:
"I don't believe any longer that it's a matter of connecting the dots. I think they had a veritable blueprint and we want to know why they didn't act on it." - Senator Arlen Specter (R-PA), 6/6/02
while the esteemed secretary of defense, Donald Rumsfeld said:
"The message is that there are no
knowns. There are things that we know that
we know. There are known unknowns; that
is to say, there are things we now know, we
don't know. But there are also unknown
unknowns — things we do not know we don't
know.
"So when we do the best we can and we
pull all this information together, and we
then say, 'Well, that's basically what we see
as the situation,' that is really only the
known knowns and the known unknowns.
And each year we discover a few more of
those unknown unknowns.
"There is another way to phrase that and
that is, that the absence of evidence is not
evidence of absence."
—Donald Rumsfeld,
US Secretary of Defense
posted on June 11, 2002 08:04:41 AM new
Spectre is the absolutely correct spelling for that poopyhead!!!!! And Rumsfeld's imitation of Eisenhower doesn't work. What is unknown about habeus corpus? You have the right to an informed opinion -Harlan Ellison
posted on June 11, 2002 08:08:28 AM new
[b]The message is that there are no
knowns. There are things that we know that
we know. There are known unknowns; that
is to say, there are things we now know, we
don't know. But there are also unknown
unknowns — things we do not know we don't
know.[/b]
posted on June 11, 2002 08:52:18 AM new
They will eventually let him go, he will sue, they will settle, then he will take the money he wins in the suit and build a better larger more potent dirty bomb, compliments of the government who arrested him without sufficient evidence and lost the suit.
posted on June 11, 2002 10:04:41 AM new
Well, I think it's some kind of diversion. Maybe to avoid addressing the mess between the CIA and the FBI about who knew what and when before 9/11. And now when it's time to find out if Bush knew about specific terrorist dangers in August it's more convenient to focus on a dirty bomb that probably doesn't exist.
posted on June 11, 2002 11:42:58 AM new
I can not place all blame on our govt for what may appear to some as unjust arrests.
The nature of terrorism produces these results more so than our govt. We need to lay the blame where it is due.
Terrorist organizations do not leave traditional trails of culpability as a conventional combatant would. This is done by design. A traditional combatant does not care what evidence he leaves, as the leaders know it is an all or nothing situation. They either win, or it really doesn't make any difference if they lose.
Terrorist strategy and tactics are quite different. Organizational stealth is practiced, formal command structure is not important, but lines of communication are. Tactics and strategies can change in a moments notice. All people and resources of the enemy are legitimate targets. There is no political authority to answer to, because any formal or overt political relationship is denied. Covert and informal political relationships are in place, and are with many different political authorities so loss of support of one does not mean the loss of all.
I also can not find fault in not acting on the information that was known before 9-11.
The reason for this is because there was no previous scenario that would give guidance on how to react or prevent these acts. We're in new terroritory.
Think about the issue of weapons in schools and how differently it is handled now by schools.
I have heard many of the OPs here proclaim that schools now over react. But the school massacres interviened to produce these reactions, due in large part by the same public outcry of "you had prior knowledge that there was a threat, why didn't you do something?" There was no guidance on what to do. In the past if there was a report of a student with a weapon, he/she would be called to the office and searched. The knife would be taken and the student sent back to class. Now the SWAT team is called in on a report of a student with a weapon or even if a student makes a threat.
When there are no past precedents that give guidance, intellegence of an unprecedented threat arrives with a silent thud. What do we do and how do we do it, and in many cases the treat isn't even believable ?
What would be the result if the US had grounded all US plane traffic on 9-11 ? We would be attacked on 10-11 instead ?
There were real failures on the part on the INS and airport security. But that was in the making for two decades.
The INS was a dumping grounds for incompetent political cronies for nearly a century. Airport security was extremely lax due to nearly 25 years of no events, not to mention minimum wage felons and illegal aliens manning the positions with no training or supervision. Also remember that the airlines were running at historically high rates of delays. Does anyone remember the movements in Congress in the summer before 9-11 regarding the need to get planes off the ground on time? Now couple this with a federal official stating that we need yet more security measures at airports due to possible threats, and it would have fallen on deaf ears or even ridicule.
Had the INS and airport security been working as it should, there probably would not have been a 9-11.
I am not sure the US knows yet how to handle civil justice issues nor military strategy and tactics when dealing with terrorists.
Our first battle field incursions of WWII in North Africa were disasters.
I only hope our learning curve is fast, or there will be more of us killed.
posted on June 11, 2002 11:56:19 AM newThe American people have, with important historical exceptions, done a good job of balancing individual liberties with the need to protect society," said MIPT Deputy Director Donald R. Hamilton. "Some restrictions placed on individuals have been temporary and some have been permanent. The good sense of the American people about how to balance freedom and security has proven durable over the long haul."
The study also revealed Americans' willingness to compromise certain specific freedoms....
Poll results showed 71% favor requiring national ID cards containing fingerprints or citizenship info. for all US residents.
posted on June 11, 2002 12:23:19 PM new
REAMOND: "You do not lose your Constitutional rights when accused of commiting treason."
You're right. I was thinking of Article 1, Section 9 of the U.S. Constittuion that states, "The privilege of the writ of habeas corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in cases of rebellion or invasion the public safety may require it." which is not nearly the same thing. I stand corrected.
And for those of you who are wondering, IF this guy can be proved to be a combatant AND a danger to the Untied States, THEN he ought to go to trial, military or civilian and get what he deserves. Same with John Walker, I agree.
But John Walker actually did fire on American troops. This guy hasn't done anything yet. Are we to arrest people on the basis of what they might do, or could do?
My thoughts is that each of these cases is a Litmus Test on the American People to see how far we'll tolerate the abridging of the Bill of Rights and the Constitution itself.
posted on June 11, 2002 12:30:16 PM new
I agree and I personally wouldn't have a problem with them. I just was surprised at the % of American's polled who agreed.
Nationally, nearly four in five (78%) Americans are willing to give up certain freedoms to gain security. To me this substantiates my feeling that Americans' are willing to "be flexible" during times like these.
posted on June 11, 2002 12:41:28 PM new
While I'm sure our government has more on Padilla than they share, here is a clip from the Las Vegas Sun.
At the end of March, U.S. and Pakistani officials found Abu Zubaydah in Faisalabad, Pakistan. He was shot by Pakistani authorities as he tried to flee, and turned over to U.S. custody.
Since then he's been talking to his American interrogators, although officials acknowledge they don't believe everything he says. Officials also recovered his notebook, which contained information referring to other plots in the works.
In April, Abu Zubaydah told his interrogators of a plot to use radiological weapons, but he did not provide many details. The CIA investigated and came up with Padilla's name and other details as the likely plotter.
That information - including Padilla's name - was taken to Abu Zubaydah, who confirmed it, according to a U.S. official, speaking on the condition of anonymity. It's unclear whether Abu Zubaydah volunteered the information or was tricked into giving it up.
[ edited by Linda_K on Jun 11, 2002 12:47 PM ]
posted on June 11, 2002 01:33:24 PM new
I think that this detention is a deliberate act on the part of the administration to set up a confrontation between the judiciary and the executive branch. They'll just park this guy, knowing he's done little or nothing, and wait for someone to file a petition in court wherever he is on his behalf, which will ultimately have to ruled upon by the supreme court. At that point the question will be who gets to define a person's citizenship - the president or the courts. If the administration prevails then they will have a free hand in making determinations of the status of any person and we will all be in deep doodoo.
posted on June 11, 2002 02:01:17 PM new"Mr. Bush has said American citizens would not be tried in military tribunals that were created after Sept. 11 to try foreign terrorists outside the U.S. court system."
-excerpt from the CBSNews link above-
Will Mr. Bush turn out to be made a liar -- again?
Seems that what they say NOW to reassure everyone that everything is OK, they reverse themselves six months or so later because they have stated that the average voter can't remember anything that happened six months ago!
This topic is 8 pages long: 1new2new3new4new5new6new7new8new
