Ashcroft abusing broad war powers
The ClubHouse: Archive: Ashcroft abusing broad war powers
Karuuna | Thursday, November 29, 2001 - 01:59 pm   Highlander: What is wrong with holding people on immigration violations? It's a clear abuse of the law's requirement that they be held ONLY if they are a terrorist alien, and a clear risk to national security. That's what's wrong with it. JMO |
Logan | Thursday, November 29, 2001 - 02:01 pm   If people are going to demand that Arabs be released from detainment in jail for whatever suspicions, then lets be fair and objective here. You should then be demanding the somali girls detained in immigration jail for the past two years be released also. And all the other detainees from various countries. Its convenient to use expressions such as "racial profiling", but all that does is create situational ethics and false impressions of the law without factual backup. |
Carigsby | Thursday, November 29, 2001 - 02:06 pm   What about immigration laws? As was stated earlier - an immigrant who is found to be in this country illegally (before or after 9/11) was detained until they were deported because (obviously) they were a flight risk. Ashcroft is in part presiding over these detainees because the Patriot Act gives the different governing bodies the right to share intelligence and duties. If they are being held on immigration violations, they are not being held under the new law - they are being held under the old law and it is not a violation of their rights. They gave up their "rights" whenever they entered or stayed in this country illegally. |
Logan | Thursday, November 29, 2001 - 02:11 pm   Carig very true. |
Highlander | Thursday, November 29, 2001 - 02:11 pm   Hundreds if not thousands if illegal aliens are incarcerated in holding facilities for "immigration violations" some have been in these jails for over two years because they are flight risks. A valid immigration violation is not a trumped up charge. if you are in this country illegally that is a fact not a trumped up charge. The government has the right to place you in a holding facility until deportation hearings are completed and appeals are completed. The idea that we would let some guy go free who had a suitcase full of box cutters, three different passports, three different state IDs is just ludicrous even if he is only in jail for an "immigration violation". I say keep him locked up till his deportation hearing. |
Kep421 | Thursday, November 29, 2001 - 02:35 pm   He lied to an investigating governmental body. I believe people who have something to hide, lie. Before this final hearing, would you be willing to bet the lives of your family and community that he did not have connections to terrorist? Are you now willing to bet the lives of your loved ones that every single one of those being detained is not part of the terrorist network? I'm not willing to bet mine, and thank God the justice department isn't either. I don't believe non-citizens rights should be put above the saftey of American citizens. If I went to an Arab country, I'd bet my life (and most probably lose it too), that I would be treated differently as a non-citizen and would not be afforded any human rights at all if I was accused of a crime. I'm talking basic human rights as in shelter, food and medical care. I have yet to see in any of the cited cases where "human rights" were violated. I definately have a problem with non-citizens demanding rights under our constitutional law as though they were American citizens. If you want to be an American entitled to all our rights, privleges and responsiblities, become one. If not, go home to the country that holds your loyaties. Why should non citizens be afforded the same rights and priviledges of this country when their loyalties and interests lie with other countries, especially if the country they are loyal to promotes the destruction of Americans? These non-citizens came here because (up until now) it was relatively easy to reap the benefits of our society and give absolutely nothing in return. There are many countries who do not afford non-citizens with the full rights and privledges of their government. For example, if I chose to live in England, I would not be entitled to that country's free health care system unless I became a citizen. And health care is considered a basic human right!!! There is nothing wrong with restricting the rights of non-citizens, it is a practice that is acknowledged worldwide. |
Karuuna | Thursday, November 29, 2001 - 04:07 pm   The 14th Amendment protects all persons, not just citizens, as do many of the bill of rights. Should we change the constitution? We are not other countries, and just because another country does something, is not an argument that we should follow that course. I have no problem with enforcing the laws we already have in place. I have no problem with investigating people because they have *clear* terrorist ties. I do have a problem with targetting otherwise innocents, just because they happen to be a particular religion or ethnicity. I do have a problem with changing the rules to take away the appropriate checks and balances that protect individuals from having their lives destroyed thru indiscriminate targetting and detention. I do have a problem with detaining people because of their ethnicity, without *verifiable* ties to terrorists. No other ethnic group has EVER been asked to come in for voluntary interviews. Except of course, when we interred Japanese Americans, and it wasn't exactly voluntary. Those of you who have no problem with the secrecy and the bill of rights violations, I wonder if you think about the incredible forces in place that would bring a politician to stretch things to his advantage. Things like corporate financing of campaigns, the desire to get re-elected, the need to please other politicians. Politicians have never been motivated solely by the "right" thing to do. It is a system that provides for disclosure and balance of power that helps them resist those other conflicting forces. I think if you value our freedom and rights as Americans, you have to protect the constitutional rights that gave us ALL that freedom. And not waive it in a prejudicial way because we're all afraid. You also have to argue for not throwing away our whole system of balance, in order to protect the very democracy you swear is better than any other. |
Highlander | Thursday, November 29, 2001 - 04:47 pm   Karunna I agree with most of what you said. I have a major problem with eliminating the attorney client priveledge and I dont believe it will stand up in the supreme court. I dont have a problem sending letters out to say, members of the same communities that the Terrorists belonged to and invite them in. it is voluntary. I have absolutely no problem with holding people who have expired visas, are illegal aliens, and have immigration violations. They are a flight risk. I dont have a problem holding people who have maps of nuclear power plants with a global positioning device who happened to have immigration violations. They are two different issues. We have basic freedoms and protections under our system of justice however, that being said, you dont just let these people who are here in this country illegally walk out the door and disappear. My only problem is why are people so upset about these people being held in custody for immigration violations when there are already thousands of people held in facilities for years as they wait for their trials and appeals to go through. Nobody is screaming about the Chinese who have been sitting in a jail for two years who were smuggled essentially in slave ships to this country for a life of servitude. Another problem I have is everyone has an opinion on what the government can't do to protect its people. I would like to see some constructive suggestions as to how we can catch these cells who are in this country without questioning the arab community. These cells do come from pakistan, saudia arabia, algeria and morrocco. |
Kep421 | Thursday, November 29, 2001 - 05:04 pm   No other ethnic group blew up the WTC and killed 5,000+ people.... I am not prejudiced. I was not the one marching in the streets, burning a Muslim flag, shouting "Death to all Arabs". Even during the middle east crisis when we had hostages held for over 2 years and Arab Americans along with non-citizen Arabs were burning our flag on our own soil, I defended their right to express their beliefs on this soil, even though I was appalled by their actions. Predjudiced? Don't even go there... You think that because the laws governing non-citizens have been instituted have been changed, the Constitutional Laws will also be changed in the future. I don't buy that. The checks and balances that protect American citizens are still in place. That hasn't changed, nor is it likely too. Others may choose to believe that the American Constitution was designed to cover all human beings on this earth, but that is not true. American laws were written for Americans, not Asians, Norwegians, Germans or Africans. I'm not saying that non-citizens shouldn't have any rights, I'm saying that the rights of non-citizens should not be allowed to place American citizens in jepoardy. I believe that I have the right to support those laws which I feel are designed to protect my country from others who would try to destroy it. And like Malcom X said, "...by any means necessary..." I also feel that everyone is entitled to the right to become an American, but that they have to be willing to express their loyalty to this country and willingness to defend it. The right to be an American is not conferred upon someone simply because they choose to live here and reap the benefits of our society. Non-citizens have not expressed any loyalty to America or its citizens. Non-citizens, by the fact that they choose to remain non-citizens, say that they do not feel this country is worth their allegiance. Non citizens come here to better themselves and achieve success, but what do they give in return? They don't participate in our voting process, they don't fight to defend our country, they don't support our government officials, and they have no responsibility to the citizens of this country. And yet, they expect the loyalty and support from our government for themselves that they refuse to offer in return. I can see that there are two sides to this story. I can also see that the best I can do here is agree to disagree. |
Karuuna | Thursday, November 29, 2001 - 05:58 pm   Thanks both of you for your comments. As I said before, I think what I find most disconcerting is the grab for secrecy and autocracy in such a wide variety of areas. It just seems extremely opportunistic to me. And no, I don't trust our elected officials -- not when they're making such a strong effort to overturn past procedures; and then deny any accountability to anyone. For another example, we have had military tribunals in the past. However, it was *required* to be proven in Federal Court, by a preponderance of evidence, that the accused was indeed acting as a military operative. The new Bush rule states that Bush is the *sole* decision maker, and the sole arbiter of who should be tried. No public airing of evidence. Again, I find that tremendously disconcerting and troubling. Ashcroft's new powers, Bush's military tribunals, Bush's executive order which essentially revokes previous law about sharing presidential records, the new ability of the vice president to executive privilege (previously a presidential only right)... it all adds up. And I don't like the total picture. |
Kep421 | Thursday, November 29, 2001 - 06:36 pm   And thank you Karuuna for your informative posts. We may be on opposites ends of this issue, but one thing is clear. We both care very deeply about our country and are willing to question and defend based on our beliefs...and that my friends is true freedom!!! |
Highlander | Thursday, November 29, 2001 - 06:55 pm   Well lets see if these military tribunals ever take place. I believe that they have been enacted in the extremely unlikely event that they catch Mullah Omar, Bin Laden or Al Zwaheeri alive. They dont want to bring these guys anywhere to stand trial. They will do their military tribunal, find them guilty and basically put a bullet in their brains. I have no problem with Bin laden, Omar or Al Zwaheeri being tried and convicted in short order. They are guilty and there is nobody on the planet who believes otherwise. |
Carigsby | Thursday, November 29, 2001 - 07:53 pm   Highlaner - I agree about the military tribunals being enacted for extreme cases. From reading the Patriot Act I feel that most of the actions are for extreme cases. I have the sense that the govenment is taking proactive measures by enacting laws that will help aid our country's defense in the war on terrorism. |
Highlander | Thursday, November 29, 2001 - 08:05 pm   yes and what will happen when the military capture Bin Laden and put him under a military tribunal. Who will come running forward to say he is entitled to due process and a trial of a jury by his peers. That is an interesting concept a jury of his peers. What are bin Laden's peers? |
Kep421 | Thursday, November 29, 2001 - 08:27 pm   Highlander, I think you mean "who" are bin Laden's peers. We all know "what" they are.... |
Meme9 | Friday, November 30, 2001 - 09:37 am   I just thought that may be one way to round them up. hehe. I can see it now...We're forming a jury..as people are called in, the first question on the list must be, "Are you a terrorist?" And if the answer is yes, then we caught another one. If the answer is no, then they are not one of his peers, so they can't be on the jury. Just a little humor to lighten the day... |
Oregonfire | Sunday, December 02, 2001 - 10:33 am   My community is one of the few that refused to cooperate with the Feds about questioning immigrants. I'm on the fence about this one--there are good reasons for each position. What do you think? From the Corvallis Gazette-Times (12-1-01) A sampling of local residents were split when asked whether they favored or disagreed with the Corvallis Police Department's decision on Wednesday to not participate in noncriminal interviews requested by U.S. Attorney General John Ashcroft. Some folks said the department's decision puts Corvallis in a bad light while others shrugged off what the rest of the country thinks about the city. Corvallis resident Michael Dolan said he can't understand how the Corvallis police don't have time to interview people on the attorney general's list when he thinks they don't do a good job with what they are supposed to do. "I'm really upset," said Dolan, who called the Gazette-Times on Thursday. "I don't understand how it is that they don't have time to help with the feds, when the fact is, from what I see, I don't think (they're) doing their job here. "To me, it's just as if they are saying, `Let everyone else take care of it,' " he said. Dolan wondered why the Corvallis police don't seem to be willing to get involved and that if terrorists were coming into the country, couldn't Corvallis help the FBI to prevent a terrorist attack from happening here? "The feds are spread pretty thin as it is," he said. "I don't see what problem is in assisting any investigation process." Dolan, who said he was disappointed in the police response when his home was burglarized, thought the department's response would be different if terrorism struck Corvallis. "If it were their brothers who died in the World Trade Center towers, you know they'd be investigating it 150 percent," he said. "Where's the justice prevailing out there?" he said. "Everywhere else but here." Carl McCreary, an archivist at Oregon State University, said he's proud of Corvallis and the example the town has made of itself. "It sets aside Corvallis as a town with some sense of integrity," he said. He called the interviews unconstitutional and said, especially in a university town with international students, it's important to stand up for basic rights and avoid "irrational measures." "I agree with Corvallis' decision, and I'm proud of it," he said. "I'm proud of Portland's decision, too, which came before this." Marsi Hammersley, who was ringing a bell outside the downtown post office collecting money for the Salvation Army, also agreed. "I don't think it's going to do any good," she said of the interviewing by federal agents that began locally on Thursday. "It's a waste of resources." "Let's just go straight to the source (Afghanistan), where we need to go," she added. She isn't worried about how outsiders view the city and the decision. "I don't think it makes us look bad," she said. "We're smart enough to know better." "I don't think they should interview anyone who hasn't committed a crime," added Lindon Hylton, who was walking his dog, Miles, downtown Friday morning. "I'm proud of the decision." He said he believes the decision makes the city look "thoughtful" and that those opposing the decision will change their minds in time. "I think people are willing to trade a lot of their freedoms in the name of security," he added. John Witt disagreed with the department's decision "because they've got to find out about these people," he said. "A bunch of bleeding-heart liberals don't want to cooperate with the police." Witt added that he believes the decision makes the city look "silly." Jeff Wright, a student at OSU and the executive director of public relations for Associated Students of Oregon State University, said CPD made the right decision, but he questioned the department's motives and said it took the easy way out. "I think that its funny they can have 20 police officers out to break up a fraternity party on a Thursday night," he said, "but they don't have the resources to interview 30 people." Wright also said students shouldn't be singled out. "Safety and justice should be of utmost importance," he said, "but I'd hate to see OSU students targeted for race and age." Philomath resident Lew England was watching Brit Hume's show on Fox News when a roundtable group spent 10 minutes discussing Corvallis. He recalled one of the participants referring to Corvallis as "wackos." "I'm embarrassed," said England, who called the Gazette-Times Thursday afternoon and also called the Corvallis police to voice his opinion. "It makes us look way out of the mainstream. Maybe we're too far from New York to feel the impact." England pegged the police department's decision to being politically correct. He also said it made Corvallis "look like a typical left-wing college town." |
Kep421 | Sunday, December 02, 2001 - 11:57 am   Well it was a "request" and not a requirement, right? In the past, inter-governmental agencies have refused to co-operate with each other for various reasons, so this is not something new. As long as the PD is not violating a federally mandated law by refusing to interview these people, I personally don't see a problem here. The justice department can either "request" another agcency complete the task, or issue a mandated order to get the work done. I'm more concerned as to why the PD thinks it is wrong to interview these people. As part of police work in general, they have to interview all kinds of people during investigations, for many different reasons, many who haven't committed any crimes, so what makes this task so different or so wrong? They are not being asked to charge anyone with a crime, are they? Also, most police departments (I'm sure this one is no different) has never had a problem holding someone as long as they could to get the information they wanted or needed for their investigations. I'm also sure that this PD has interviewed people they felt had not committed any crime during the course of an investigation and ended up arresting them based on the information they recieved. Gathering information is a normal part of police work and to think that interviewing someone who hasn't committed a crime is the same as charging them is absurd. I think the PD is refusing to cooperate mainly because they don't want to be viewed as the JD's henchmen. I believe they are more concerned about the department's image than the rights of anyone, including the citizens of Corvallis. |
Ocean_Islands | Monday, December 03, 2001 - 11:11 am   December 3, 2001 IN AMERICA The Witch Hunt By BOB HERBERT NY Times Twenty years ago The New York Times ran a story out of Buenos Aires that mentioned a woman who was "small and wiry and full of hate for the Argentine government." The woman told how men had broken into her house five years earlier and taken her adult son away. Three months later the men visited her family's newsstand and took away her daughter. There was a lot of news in those days about "the disappeared" in Argentina, the thousands of men and women abducted by state security forces who spent years hunting and killing suspected terrorists in the aftermath of a military coup in 1976. The Washington Post, in an article in 1982, said: "After the military takeover, armed forces officials admit privately, the operation slipped completely out of control. Human rights groups charge that not only terrorists, but also thousands of other persons suspected of supporting them, or simply suspected of knowing them, were picked up — as were families and bystanders — and brutally disposed of." A friend of mine who spent some time in South America in the 1990's and who works at The Times now said, "In Argentina, friends told me how people would disappear and never come home, and their families never knew what happened to them. And — like here now — the press had no list of names, charges, etc. And I actually thought at that time of how lucky I was to live in a country where that would never happen." The United States is not brutally disposing of suspected terrorists and people suspected of knowing them. But it is on an incredible witch hunt, fueled, as witch hunts always are, by incredible fear. The public is predisposed to give the government a free hand in its search for terrorists. Just do what you have to do. But a criminal-justice club wielded without restraint is all but guaranteed to spread its own form of terror, bludgeoning the innocent right along with the guilty. At the direction of the president and the attorney general, more than 1,200 people have been rounded up as part of the investigation into the Sept. 11 attacks. But only a tiny number of those arrested are suspected of having even the remotest connection to terror activities. The dragnet has mostly yielded traffic violators, petty criminals, people who have done unsavory things with credit cards and people guilty of nothing at all. In hundreds of cases the authorities have withheld from the public the names of those detained for allegedly violating immigration regulations. We don't know if they're guilty or not. We don't even know precisely what they're charged with. What we do know is that this kind of secrecy can lead to the worst kinds of abuses. It's a recipe for tragedy. And then there are President Bush's military tribunals, proceedings that — incredibly — could impose a sentence of death by a vote of just two-thirds, possibly in secret, and with the accused having no effective right to appeal either the verdict or the sentence. Can I get a vote of 6 to 3? Done! You're guilty. Take him out and kill him. Can that possibly be the American way? If you don't want to drag Osama bin Laden to the U.S. for a circus of a trial, fine. Shoot him in his cave. Bomb him. Whatever. He's a war criminal on the loose and a genuine threat to kill thousands more at any time. But if you're the United States of America, and you're going to start arresting people and bringing them to trial, you have to give them fair trials. And before you start executing people, you have to try to make sure you're separating the guilty from the innocent. This is not a principle that evaporates because the populace is angry and frightened. The rounding up of Japanese immigrants in the early 1940's was not the answer to the mortal threat of World War II. And the indiscriminate seizure and prosecution of Middle Eastern people in the U.S. and overseas will not now make us safe from terrorism. We have a choice. We can fight and win a just war against terrorism, and emerge with the greatness of the United States intact. Or, we can win while running roughshod over the principles of fairness and due process that we claim to cherish, thus shaming ourselves in the eyes of the world and — eventually, when the smoke of fear and anger finally clears — in our own eyes as well. |
Grooch | Wednesday, December 05, 2001 - 12:04 pm   I was going to post earlier today that this subject has seemed to have disappeared from the news. No more stories on it at all, it seems to me. But then I did find this article, right now. Whether you agree with it or not, I'm just posting it to try to help keep people informed. Groups Sue for Data on Detainees December 05, 2001 02:37 PM ET WASHINGTON (Reuters) - A group of civil liberties and rights organizations on Wednesday filed a lawsuit against the U.S. government requesting disclosure of basic information about hundreds of people detained and arrested since Sept. 11. The suit, filed by 16 organizations including the American Civil Liberties Union, the Arab-American Anti-Discrimination Committee and Human Rights Watch, is the first of its kind against the government since the Bush administration launched an aggressive arrest and detention campaign to find those responsible for the attacks on New York and Washington. "Since Sept. 11, hundreds of people have been arrested, detained and virtually disappeared from public sight," said Steven Shapiro, legal director for the ACLU. "That may be the way other countries operate; it is not the way this country functions. "The American people have the right to know who has been arrested, where and why they are detained, the conditions of their confinement and whether they are being given proper access to counsel and the judicial process," he said. U.S. Attorney General John Ashcroft has said federal criminal or immigration charges have been brought against more than 650 people since Sept. 11. The Justice Department has released information on just over 100 individuals charged with federal criminal violations. But Ashcroft would not release the names of the 548 people held on immigration charges, saying it might help Osama bin Laden's network. The United States says the Saudi-born fugitive and his al Qaeda network were responsible for the Sept. 11 attacks. The suit was filed after the government did not respond to an Oct. 29 Freedom of Information Act request seeking information about the arrested or detained individuals, attorneys for the groups said. "This lawsuit does not question the importance of the government's investigation," the complaint said. "The government candidly acknowledges that hundreds of people remain in federal custody but refuses to disclose, among other basic facts, who these detainees are and where they are being held." "This secrecy is unprecedented and deprives the public of information it is lawfully entitled to receive." Attorneys involved in the case expect proceedings to begin quickly. Judge Gladys Kessler of the federal district court in Washington will hear the case. |
Carigsby | Wednesday, December 05, 2001 - 12:31 pm   Good - let the court decide...the people who interpret our laws and our constitution. |
Ocean_Islands | Wednesday, December 05, 2001 - 02:56 pm   I am so grateful for groups and people who are willing to take the government on like this -- they are true defenders of the people. |
Car54 | Wednesday, December 05, 2001 - 04:56 pm   Thanks Grooch |
Ocean_Islands | Thursday, December 06, 2001 - 09:29 am   Read how the Ashcroft/Bush offensive against human rights also runs counter to the United Nations Treaty written by Eleanor Roosevelt December 6, 2001 'Voices of Negativism' By WILLIAM SAFIRE WASHINGTON Preparing to tell the Senate Judiciary Committee where to get off today, Attorney General John Ashcroft lashed out at all who dare to uphold our bedrock rule of law as "voices of negativism." (A nattering nabob, moi?) Polls show terrorized Americans willing to subvert our Constitution to hold Soviet-style secret military trials. No presumption of innocence; no independent juries; no right to choice of counsel; no appeal to civilian judges for aliens suspected of being in touch with terrorists. President Bush had no political motive in suspending, with a stroke of his pen, habeas corpus for 20 million people; his 90 percent popularity needs no boost. The feebleness of the Democrats' response, however — with the honorable exception of Vermont's Senator Pat Leahy — is highly political. Tom Daschle is waffling wildly because he is terrified of being slammed as "soft on terrorism," which might overwhelm his strategy of running against "the Bush recession" in the 2002 elections. With most voters trusting the government with anything, and with an attorney general and his hand-picked F.B.I. boss having the publicity time of their lives, one might expect us negativists to be in disarray. Here's why we are not: The sudden seizure of power by the executive branch, bypassing all constitutional checks and balances, is beginning to be recognized by cooler heads in the White House, Defense Department and C.I.A. as more than a bit excessive. Not that they'll ever admit it publicly; Bush will stick to his shaky line that civil courts cannot be trusted to protect military secrets and, as fearful Orrin Hatch assures him, jurors will be too scared to serve. But his order asserting his power to set up drumhead courts strikes some of his advisers, on sober second thought, as counterproductive. Set aside all the negativist libertarian whining about constitutional rights, goes his newest advice, and forget about America's moral leadership. Be pragmatic: our notion of a kangaroo court is backfiring — defeating its antiterrorist purpose. At the State Department, word is coming in from Spain, Germany and Britain — where scores of Al Qaeda suspects have been arrested — that the U.N. human rights treaty pioneered by Eleanor Roosevelt prohibits the turning over of their prisoners to military tribunals that ignore such rights. That denies us valuable information about "sleepers" in Osama bin Laden's cells who are in the U.S. planning future attacks. (Those zealots who cited F.D.R.'s saboteur precedent forgot about Eleanor.) At the C.I.A., data about China, Russia and other closed societies is gleaned from debriefing returning travelers. But U.S. kangaroo courts would legitimize harsh proceedings overseas against U.S. business executives, academics and tourists — thereby shutting down major intelligence sources. (Interviewing 5,000 Muslim students and visitors, however, is seen by our spooks as an excellent opportunity to recruit Arabic- speaking agents.) At Justice, those not in the Ashcroft-Mueller axis view the tribunals as giving priority to punishment for past attacks rather than helping to prevent future attacks. Thus Ashcroft undermines Justice's justification for its nationwide dragnet. At Defense, the hastily drawn order must be translated into a system of trials that would not be invalidated by a Supreme Court. Secretary Donald Rumsfeld has refused to follow lockstep behind Ashcroft in deriding strict constructionists as negativist. On the contrary, Rumsfeld calls the informed outcry "useful" in refining the order. The hopeful news is that Rumsfeld has reached outside the Pentagon to get advice from legal minds not conflicted by administration ties. Lawyers inside the armed services are also determined to resist the subversion of the Uniform Code of Military Justice by Bush's diktat. Many attorneys friendly to this White House know that order was egregiously ill drafted. The White House counsel, Alberto Gonzales, defended the order on this Op-Ed page by denying or interpreting away its most offensive provisions. That's his signal to the Pentagon general counsel, William Haynes, to give the broadest interpretation to the order's five words promising non-citizens "a full and fair trial." Otherwise, our Constitution would be set aside by Cicero's ancient inter arma silent leges — in time of war, the law falls silent. |
Babyruth | Thursday, December 06, 2001 - 09:39 am   Closing the barn doors a bit late, IMO, but at least someone is doing something before we become the totalitarian state our founding fathers abhored December 6, 2001 N.Y.Times Ashcroft Appears Before Senate to Defend Tactics By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS Filed at 11:38 a.m. ET WASHINGTON (AP) -- Attorney General John Ashcroft, defending administration measures to counteract terrorism, declared Thursday the nation must not let down its guard against threats that present ``a daily chronicle of the hatred of Americans by fanatics.'' Holding aloft an al-Qaida terrorism manual, Ashcroft told the Senate Judiciary Committee: ``We are war with an enemy that abuses individual rights as it abuses jetliners. ... Defending our nation and its citizens against terrorist attacks is now our first law enforcement priority.'' Ashcroft's appearance came in an atmosphere of mounting criticism by Senate Democrats that the Justice Department moved too far, too quickly, to implement a host of stern investigative measures in the wake of the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks. Ashcroft chided critics of the various measures, including the government's detention and questioning of hundreds of Middle Eastern men. He said critics are uninformed. ``Charges of kangaroo courts and shredding the Constitution give new meaning to the term 'the fog of war,''' he said. ``Each action taken by the Department of Justice as well as the war crimes commission ... is carefully drawn to cover a narrow class of individuals -- terrorists,'' Ashcroft declared. On the 87th day since the attack, Ashcroft told lawmakers he received chilling daily intelligence reports. ``My day begins with a review of the threats to Americans and American interests,'' Ashcroft said. ``If ever there were proof of evil in the world it is in these reports. ``They are a chilling daily chronicle of the hatred of Americans by fanatics, who seek to extinguish freedom, enslave women, corrupt education, and to kill Americans wherever and whenever they can.'' The committee chairman, Sen. Patrick Leahy, D-Vt., said the government needs a good reason to snoop into bank records, tax returns and e-mails. Sen. Orrin Hatch, R-Utah, countered: ``Let's keep our focus on where it matters -- protecting U.S. citizens.'' Leahy said the president was taking a risk by acting without Congress to establish a tribunal system that might not survive Supreme Court scrutiny. ``It is a calculated risk that the Supreme Court will uphold something it has not upheld before,'' Leahy said. Ashcroft replied that Bush has an ``inherent authority and power'' to prosecute war crimes. He would not specify whether terrorists trying to enter the United States would be covered by the tribunals, only promising ``full and fair proceedings.'' ``We have set as a priority the prevention of additional terrorists attacks and we don't ever want anything like Sept 11. to again visit us on our own soil with innocent victims,'' the attorney general said. ``We hope to improve our performance regularly by making whatever changes we can to upgrade our ability to detect and prevent terrorism -- to disrupt it and to make it difficult, in fact impossible. ``We did not have the kind of protection we needed on Sept 11,'' Ashcroft added. ``So, for us to continue and act like no changes would be appropriate may not be in our best interests.'' Ashcroft was questioned by Sen. Edward Kennedy, D-Mass., about why the Justice Department denied the FBI access to the National Instant Check System records to determine whether any of the detainees had bought guns. ``The only permissible use for the national check system is to audit the maintenance of that system, and the Department of Justice is committed to following the law in that respect,'' he replied. ``When the request first came, obviously the instinct of the FBI was to use the information to see. When they were advised by those who monitor whether or not we follow the congressional direction, we stopped, and I believe we did the right thing.'' When it comes to listening in on inmates' conversations with their lawyers, Ashcroft said the Justice Department tells all parties that their conversations will be monitored beforehand, and said he is confident that all precautions required by the courts are being taken. But federal officials are not willing ``to allow individuals to continue terrorist activities or other acts that would harm the American public by using their lawyers and their conversations to continue or to extend acts of terrorism or violence against the American people,'' Ashcroft said. In addition to the civil rights concerns, some senators are unhappy that the White House and Justice Department acted without telling most members of Congress in advance. Democrats are especially upset about some of the administration's plans because no one from the administration mentioned them during weeks of negotiations between Ashcroft and Congress to expand police powers in response to Sept. 11. The Democrats see their questioning of Ashcroft as protecting the integrity of the constitutional separation of powers. ``This administration has preferred to go it alone, with no authorization or prior consultation with the legislative branch,'' Leahy said. ``This is no mere technicality. It fundamentally jeopardizes the separation of powers that undergirds our constitutional system.'' Ashcroft's relationship with the committee has been rocky all year. In his first appearance in front of the committee as attorney general, Ashcroft only stayed about 90 minutes, which kept some of the committee members from asking questions. Democratic senators have not forgotten. |
Grooch | Saturday, December 08, 2001 - 05:37 am   From the Sun Sentinel Mideast detainees await freedom at Krome By Jody A. Benjamin Staff Writer Posted December 8 2001 Abdul Salam-m-Amin says he knew terror in Iraq. Because the truck driver delivered water tanks and other supplies to fellow Kurdish residents opposed to Saddam Hussein's government, police put out a warrant for his arrest. So he paid $9,000 to flee his homeland. Smugglers led Amin on a seven-month trek through five countries that he thought would end in freedom at the house of his cousin, a U.S. citizen living in Denver. Instead, he is behind barbed wire at Krome, the immigrant detention camp on the edge of the Everglades. Amin, 43, had hoped U.S. immigration authorities would allow him to live with his cousin while he applied for political asylum. Before Sept. 11, that might have happened. But in the wake of the terrorist attacks, Amin's appeal for release has fallen on deaf ears. Since being detained at Miami International Airport on July 31, he has watched asylum seekers from such places as Colombia, Haiti and China released from Krome. "But not the Iraqis," said Amin. Not the Pakistanis, Jordanians, Iranians or stateless Palestinians, either, according to immigrant advocates. There are about 50 asylum seekers at Krome from the Middle East whose appeals for release have been blocked, they said. The Immigration and Naturalization Service denies that it is treating these asylum seekers any differently than others. But advocates say the INS, acting on orders from the Justice Department, is going out of its way to block the release of these people, based solely on their countries of origin. "Most, if not all, of them are asylum seekers who have had initial, credible fear interviews with asylum officers who believe their claims," said Cheryl Little, executive director of the Florida Immigrant Advocacy Center. "Instead of being released, they are being detained." She referred to the standard for obtaining asylum: having a credible fear of being persecuted in the person's home country. INS spokesman Rodney Germain denied any agency bias against detainees from the Middle East, saying the agency had not changed its policy of handling asylum cases since Sept. 11. Release decisions are based on the circumstances of each case, he said. "It's not about nationality or race," said Germain. "If there are people in INS custody, it is because they have outstanding immigration issues." On Thursday, speaking to the Senate Judiciary Committee, U.S. Attorney General John Ashcroft defended the government's treatment of immigrant detainees. All are given access to lawyers, he said. He said critics of the detention policy were not only wrong, they were aiding terrorists. At Krome, it's not only asylum seekers who complain. Attorneys for Middle Eastern detainees picked up for questioning as part of the Sept. 11 investigation -- 546 people are being sought in Florida -- also have found obstacles to release, even after they have been cleared of ties to terrorists, their advocates say. Immigration attorney Rhonda Gelfman said she represents Zuhair Al Qahtani, 31, who was held because he overstayed a visa. The FBI cleared him of suspicion three weeks ago, said Gelfman, but INS still opposed his release on bond. The FBI was never interested in questioning his wife, Hanadi Hababeh. But because she, too, had overstayed her visa, she was taken to a county jail, where guards forced her to remove her headscarf in a public area, contrary to Muslim custom. It was only Friday, after the Saudi Embassy intervened and the couple agreed to leave the United States, that they were released on $5,000 bond, Gelfman said. They abandoned a previous application to become permanent legal residents. "They've been put through so much mental stress and harassment, they have no desire to live here anymore," Gelfman said. "Before Sept. 11 they would have at least been allowed to leave the U.S. without being in jail for two months. But they couldn't even post bond." It's a familiar story to Sheila Latimer, who represents Amin, the Iraqi refugee, and several others. "In retrospect, I think we are going to look back on what happened in December 2001, and we will say that we went too far. We are trampling on the freedoms that this country stands for," Latimer said. Amin arrived at Miami International Airport on July 31. From Iraq, he traveled to Moscow on a fake Turkish passport. He went on to Havana, Cuba; Peru; Chile; and Bolivia before landing in Miami. At a smuggler's instruction, Amin said, he destroyed his passport on the plane. He asked INS for political asylum, saying that turning to smugglers had been his only option. "I have no choice," Amin said. "How can I arrive here? I am a refugee. To save my life I have to pay the money to the people." From the airport, INS took Amin to Krome. On Aug. 2, an INS asylum officer said the agency was satisfied it had verified Amin's identity and that it found his story credible. Before Sept. 11, asylum-seekers like Amin, with U.S. citizen sponsors, were typically released while they applied for asylum, a process that takes a year or more to complete, Little said. But in Amin's case, INS opposed bond for him and set another asylum hearing for Jan. 8. "Of course, the U.S. should be careful about the people [it allows into the country]. Of course, it's to protect the country," said Amin, sitting behind glass in a narrow visitor's booth at Krome. "But it must also be fair. It must be fair." Jody A. Benjamin can be reached at jbenjamin@sun-sentinel.com or 954-356-4530. |
Carigsby | Thursday, December 13, 2001 - 06:17 am   Just to beg the question... if this man hadn't been held - would we have ever found him again after gathering all of the evidence? Link Wednesday December 12 09:06 AM EST Man Held Since August Is Accused of Plotting Sept. 11 Terror Attacks By DAVID JOHNSTON and PHILIP SHENON The New York Times The government filed its first criminal charge directly related to the attacks, indicting a man who officials believe was meant to be the 20th hijacker. WASHINGTON, Dec. 11 Three months after 19 men commandeered four planes to kill thousands of Americans, the government today filed its first criminal charge directly related to the attacks, indicting a man who officials believe was meant to be the 20th hijacker. The indictment accused Zacarias Moussaoui, a 33-year-old French citizen of Moroccan descent, of "conspiring with Osama bin Laden and Al Qaeda to murder thousands of innocent people in New York, Virginia and Pennsylvania on Sept. 11." Four of the six counts carry a maximum sentence of death. The indictment also named Mr. bin Laden, the 19 suspected hijackers and three others as unindicted co- conspirators. And it provided the most detailed official accounting yet of what the government has learned about the plot to attack the Pentagon and the World Trade Center and how it was financed. Administration officials said that the decision to prosecute Mr. Moussaoui in federal court followed a contentious debate between the Pentagon, which wanted to try him in an overseas military tribunal, and the Justice Department, which has secured convictions in several important terrorist cases in American courts. The officials said that recent criticism of military tribunals helped to shape the decision. White House officials said that President Bush and Attorney General John Ashcroft made the decision on Monday. Mr. Moussaoui was arrested on Aug. 16 on immigration violations after officials at a Minnesota flight school, where he spent a couple of days using a jet flight simulator, alerted authorities to what they regarded as suspicious behavior. Since shortly after the attacks, he has been held in New York as a material witness, but he will soon be transferred to Virginia, officials said. Mr. Moussaoui, who has refused to cooperate with authorities, is to be arraigned on Jan. 2 in federal district court in Alexandria, Va., just outside Washington. Justice Department officials said Mr. Moussaoui had not yet been assigned a lawyer. In a letter to his mother, published in late October by a French newspaper, Mr. Moussaoui denied doing anything wrong. Over all, the indictment contends that Mr. Moussaoui was a soldier in Mr. bin Laden's Al Qaeda terrorist network and had trained at an Al Qaeda camp in Afghanistan in 1998. "The indictment issued today is a chronicle of evil, a carefully documented year-by-year, month-by- month, day-by-day account of a terrorist conspiracy that gathered both force and intensity in the weeks before September the 11th," Mr. Ashcroft said. Mr. Moussaoui is charged with having been an active participant in this conspiracy, along with the 19 terrorists who carried it out. The indictment provides many new details about Mr. Moussaoui's movements and activities in the United States, as well as those of the 19 hijackers. The charges indicate that the government has amassed a wealth of detailed information about the events that led up to the hijackings and has analyzed the plot's financing, tracking withdrawals and deposits from the United Arab Emirates and Europe to the hijackers' bank accounts in the United States. At the heart of the government's charges against Mr. Moussaoui are accusations that he engaged in a narrow pattern of activities identical to one conducted by the 19 hijackers buying knives and flight training materials, receiving wire transfers from abroad at about the same time as the others, even though he lived in another part of the country and had no apparent contact with them. Also, like Mohamed Atta, the man who authorities believe led the plot, the indictment said that Mr. Moussaoui made inquiries at a crop-dusting company and possessed a computer disk with information about the aerial application of pesticides. The indictment said Mr. Moussaoui entered the United States in February, declaring on a customs form that he was carrying $35,000 in cash. He arrived in Chicago after Ramzi bin al Shibh, a Yemeni national authorities thought to be a possible hijacker, was refused entry into the country on four occasions. Mr. Shibh quickly became Mr. Moussaoui's financier. Authorities say he also sent money to at least one other hijacker, providing the closest link authorities have offered indirectly connecting Mr. Moussaoui to the hijacker teams. The indictment said that Mr. Shibh transferred thousands of dollars to Mr. Moussaoui for flight training. On Aug. 1 and Aug. 3, Mr. Shibh, said to be using the name Ahad Sabet, wired $14,000 in money orders to Mr. Moussaoui. The indictment also said that on Aug. 3, Mr. Moussaoui bought two knives in Oklahoma City. The government said Mr. Moussaoui was preparing to join one of the hijacking teams; investigators theorized from the start that the plotters intended to have at least four teams of five members each. The airplane that crashed in Pennsylvania had only four hijackers, while the other three planes each had five. In addition to Mr. bin Laden and the 19 suspected hijackers, the indictment named two top Al Qaeda figures as co-conspirators: Mr. bin Laden's deputy, Ayman Zawahiri, who was believed killed in Afghanistan this month; and Mustafa Ahmed al-Hisawi, Al Qaeda's finance manager. It also named Mustafa Ahmed al Hawsawi, who is accused of opening bank accounts used in the plot. Officials said that other co-conspirators could be charged later. In announcing the indictment at the Justice Department today, Mr. Ashcroft swept aside a question about why Mr. Moussaoui would be tried in a civilian court, rather than a military tribunal. "My responsibility is to bring charges against those who commit crimes and are to be tried in the criminal justice system," he said, adding that "We believe that the indictment speaks clearly about the nature of this case." The indictment charged Mr. Moussaoui with conspiracy to commit acts of terrorism; to commit aircraft piracy; to destroy aircraft; to use airplanes as weapons of mass destruction; to murder government employees; and to destroy property. According to the White House, the decision to indict Mr. Moussaoui came after Mr. Bush met with Mr. Ashcroft on Monday. "The president asked a series of questions about the case," the White House press secretary, Ari Fleischer, said. "The attorney general recommended that the case be heard in a civilian criminal court." The president concurred, Mr. Fleischer said. Mr. Bush was satisfied that a civilian court trial would not jeopardize sensitive intelligence sources, Mr. Fleischer said. Nothing in the indictment suggested that Mr. Moussaoui had any contact with any of the 19 hijackers, but officials still seemed defensive today when asked why Mr. Moussaoui's arrest did not lead authorities to the Sept. 11 plot. Robert S. Mueller III, the F.B.I. director, said law enforcement officials had decided before Sept. 11 that they lacked legal authority to obtain a court-approved intelligence warrant, known as a F.I.S.A. warrant, to search Mr. Moussaoui's laptop computer. It was later found to contain data concerning flight training. Asked if the bureau could have headed off the attack by investigating Mr. Moussaoui more extensively, Mr. Mueller said, "All I can tell you is that the agents on the scene attempted to follow up aggressively. The attorneys back at the F.B.I. determined that there was insufficient probable cause for a F.I.S.A., which appears to be an accurate decision. And Sept. 11 happened." |
Carigsby | Thursday, December 13, 2001 - 06:18 am   ACK - I don't know what happened - how do I fix it so that it doesn't make it so wide? |
Moderator | Thursday, December 13, 2001 - 06:53 am   Its fixed. If you type \ link{ the actual web address,Link } and remove the spaces I put there, the web address will appear as "Link". When you just have the entire web address, the computer reads it as one word and lengthens the screen to accomadate it. I hope this helps. Mod 99 |
Carigsby | Thursday, December 13, 2001 - 07:00 am   Thanks, Mod! |
Highlander | Thursday, December 13, 2001 - 07:38 am   What is interesting is that he wasnt arrested because of September 11th. He had been in jail since August on immigration violations. As I have said before it has been a standard practice long before September 11th to detain people who are not in this country legally. We were just lucky with this guy. He was well known to French and British authorities as a threat. It is only because of Septmber 11th that the international intelligence communities are now sharing information. If they had shared information he probably never would have been given a visa to enter the country in the first place. On another note, Saudi Arabia, Yemen and Egypt are asking that their nationals who are captured in Afghanistan should be turned over to them rather than be put on trial somewhere else. The idea of turning these people back to Saudi Arabia and Yemen so they can start their cells up again is laughable. |
Kep421 | Thursday, December 13, 2001 - 10:16 am   Someone ought to send this article to the Corvallis Police Department. |
Grooch | Wednesday, December 19, 2001 - 10:39 am   Sorry, I can't resist posting this. Santa Falls Foul of Anti-Terrorism Laws OTTAWA (Reuters) - Canadian police, taking advantage of sweeping new anti-terrorism legislation, arrested Santa Claus on the grounds that he had a beard, was behaving suspiciously and, in all likelihood, belonged to a underground cell. Or so demonstrators would have you believe. The ``arrest'' Monday was stage-managed by local pro-democracy activists who say that the legislation -- which the Senate, or upper house of Parliament, was due to start debating later Monday -- will destroy many civil liberties. The law, the brainchild of Justice Minister Anne McLellan, and passed already by the House of Commons, will ban fund-raising by terrorist groups, widen wiretapping authority and allow police to make preventive arrests of people they think would engage in terrorism. As thick snow fell across Parliament Hill in Ottawa, a small crowd of demonstrators watched an actor dressed as a policeman handcuff a protesting Santa and take him away. ``We're sorry to say that Santa has been put on the list of terrorists and he is being arrested today because of concerns by Anne McLellan that he might be up to no good,'' said local activist Betty-Anne Daviss. As Santa was hauled off to meet his fate, fellow demonstrator Ken Johnson said it was clear the suspect was part of a larger organization. ``They're clearly in cahoots across the country, all these people doing very similar and weird things, spending time in shopping malls and waving in parades. I'm sure those hand signals are indicating something to other members of the cell,'' he said. McLellan rushed out the legislation to meet the needs of various government departments in the wake of the Sept. 11 strikes on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon. After concerted protests, the government did soften the legislation by introducing sunset clauses under which two provisions -- allowing for preventive arrests and judicial investigative hearings -- would expire after five years. |
|