Archive through November 29, 2001

The ClubHouse: Archive: Ashcroft abusing broad war powers: Archive through November 29, 2001

Carigsby

Thursday, November 29, 2001 - 07:25 am Click here to edit this post
They were rounded up based on suspicion and then (most times) burned at the stake. The "suspicion" was of them practicing a religion. The "suspicion" of terrorist activity is much different, in my opinion.

Grooch

Thursday, November 29, 2001 - 09:11 am Click here to edit this post
This is from the Ft Lauderdale Sun Sentinel:

U.S. plans to quiz 160 S. Florida Muslims, prompting complaints about 'profiling'

By Megan O'Matz
and Jeff Shields Staff Writers
Posted November 29 2001

The U.S. Justice Department's plans to interview 160 mostly Middle Eastern men in South Florida as part of a far-reaching terrorism investigation has stirred fear among local Arab-Americans and drawn protests from civil libertarians.

Armed with a set of questions handed down from Washington, investigators from the South Florida Joint Terrorism Task Force are fanning out across the area in search of the men who made the list based on their ages, country of origin and length of time in the United States. One question asks how each man felt when he heard the news of Sept. 11.

Islamic leaders and civil rights groups say the move is akin to racial profiling.

"It's a type of investigation that carries a great potential to create the impression that interviewees are being singled out because of their race, ethnicity or religion," said Altaf Ali, director of the Florida chapter of the Council on American-Islamic Relations. "This can have a ripple effect on the community at large, especially the Muslim community."

But federal authorities said the interviews are both part of the anti-terrorism investigation and an attempt to extend a hand to the Islamic community to develop sources and investigate hate crimes.

"It's a continued effort not only to see if we can obtain valuable investigative leads, but to reach out -- and be out -- in the community,'' said Julia Paylor, the U.S. attorney's lead prosecutor in the terrorism investigation in South Florida.

Nationwide, the Justice Department has asked local police to find and interview 5,000 foreigners, including 546 from Florida, who entered the United States since Jan. 1, 2000, on student, business or tourist visas. The people on the list are men between the ages of 18 and 33 from countries known to harbor al-Qaida terrorist cells.

Agencies to assist

In Miami, the South Florida Joint Terrorism Task Force, which includes federal, state and local law enforcement, met Monday and divided investigators into 20 teams to handle the questioning. Broward and Palm Beach County sheriff's offices are part of the team and will take part in the interviews.

"We're going to be assisting like every other law enforcement agency throughout the nation," said Diane Carhart, spokeswoman for the Palm Beach County Sheriff's Office. She had no details Wednesday about Palm Beach County's role.

Local and federal officials have stressed that the men are not suspects in any criminal activity and that participation in the interviews is voluntary.

"It's normal to talk to people who may have knowledge useful in an investigation," said Jim Leljedal, spokesman for the Broward Sheriff's Office, which will interview about 100 of the men.

Intimidating, intrusive

Civil rights advocates say the government does not have reason to believe the men have pertinent information, making the questioning intimidating and intrusive.

"They're not going out trying to talk to people who may have been in a position to see or hear or know something," said Randall Marshall, legal director of the American Civil Liberties Union of Florida. "They have simply singled out a group of individuals based upon a profile."

The questioning, which is expected to be completed by Dec. 21, has alarmed Muslims, who note that the government already has detained 603 individuals nationwide in its terrorism investigation, mostly on immigration violations.

Jennifer McCord, a spokeswoman for the Florida Department of Law Enforcement, said authorities will conduct background checks on the 546 individuals wanted for questioning in Florida, but the process is not intended to uncover immigration violations.

"We're not doing this to find out who is and isn't illegal here," she said.

A Nov. 9 memo from the Justice Department to local anti-terrorism task forces, however, instructs authorities to contact the Immigration and Naturalization Service if they suspect a person on the list may be in violation of federal immigration laws.

"Those officials will advise you whether the individual is in violation of the immigration laws and whether he should be detained," the memo states.

Information sought

North Miami Beach Police Chief Bill Berger, president of the International Association of Chiefs of Police, said the questioning is designed to learn more about why the men are in the United States and to confirm their whereabouts, particularly if the government does not have their correct addresses.

"These are not criminals. These are not bad people. Many are students whose visas have not been renewed or updated," he said. He described the interviews as a "status" check.

Agreeing with federal authorities that the interviews are voluntary, Berger said it's in the person's best interest to cooperate.

"If they say I'm not telling you, then you know what, you're going back home," he said. "That's all we're saying. We're not saying we'll put you in prison."

Each of 19 hijackers involved in the Sept. 11 attacks entered the country legally on temporary visas, federal authorities have learned. Two had overstayed their visas, and a third violated his student visa by never attending classes.

The Justice Department guidelines for questioning instruct authorities to ascertain personal information about the men, including their employment and sources of income, whether they have any scientific expertise, and their travel paths, including whether they have visited any landmarks.

`Really troubling'

Authorities are also advised to ask how the men felt when they heard about the Sept. 11 attacks, whether they have experienced any violence or threats because of their religion or nationality, and whether they have any sympathy for the terrorists.

"Some of the questions that he wants to ask are really troubling," said Howard Simon, the ACLU's executive director in Florida. "They want to know about beliefs, not even actions. All of that seems to hearken back to the worst days of McCarthyism."

Police in Portland, Ore., refused to participate in the questioning, noting that state laws prohibit authorities from interrogating immigrants unless they are suspected of a crime. In Michigan, authorities sent letters to hundreds on the list, asking them to make appointments for interviews.

Some civil libertarians have expressed concern that the people on the list are not being advised of their right to an attorney.

The Justice Department has not released the names of the 5,000 men wanted for questioning across the country.

"Everyone is suspect now. Who is this 5,000 names? This makes everyone think that they are among the names," said Ibrahim Dremali, the imam of the Islamic Center of Boca Raton.


Asim Mohamed, 38, a Plantation travel agent and a Sudanese Muslim, feared that the questioning will further strain relations with non-Muslims.

"Right now when you are Middle Eastern and you have a Muslim name ... if you go anywhere, people look at you like a suspect," he said. "This is a problem we're facing as Muslims. You're afraid sometimes the way people look at you."

Staff Writers Tanya Weinberg, David Cazares and Sarah Cartmell contributed to this story.

Carigsby

Thursday, November 29, 2001 - 09:20 am Click here to edit this post
"Each of 19 hijackers involved in the Sept. 11 attacks entered the country legally on temporary visas, federal authorities have learned. Two had overstayed their visas, and a third violated his student visa by never attending classes."

Who is to say that there aren't 19 more in this country????? How can anyone not be able justify finding illegal immigrants and questioning those who are living among us who are not citizens of this country who FIT the profile of those who have attacked our country?? Profiling is not new! Most serial killers are white men - that's profiling and it's necessary when trying to find criminals.

Grooch

Thursday, November 29, 2001 - 09:32 am Click here to edit this post
But we don't do a blanket search and call in every white man between the ages of 20 and 45 for voluntary questioning.

Next time a serial killer does strike again in this country, we should call in every white man and ask him questions like how did you feel when you heard that this person was murdered in such and such way, etc.

Grooch

Thursday, November 29, 2001 - 09:43 am Click here to edit this post
<<The "suspicion" was of them practicing a religion. The "suspicion" of terrorist activity is much different, in my opinion. >>


The comparison is not what was the reason of the witchhunt, but what happens when you go on one.

Here is a link to a summary of the event at Salem:

Link


I think the last paragraph sums it up.

"The witches disappeared, but witchhunting in America did not. Each generation must learn the lessons of history or risk repeating its mistakes. Salem should warn us to think hard about how to best safeguard and improve our system of justice."

Kep421

Thursday, November 29, 2001 - 10:10 am Click here to edit this post
I don't think the Salem Witch hunts is a fair comparsion in this case because of the outcome. First of all witches with supernatural powers aren't a real threat, terrorists are. Further we are deporting the illegal immigrants, which is a far cry from burning them at the stake.

Our government would be very stupid and negligent to close its eyes to the possible threat that middle eastern illegal immigrants pose. Are we over reacting? Most likely, but then I would rather have this kind of over reaction than allow terrorists to move freely around my country targeting areas for mass destruction.

I can't help but think that if some of these restrictions and so called "profiling" procedures had been in place prior to Sept. 11th 2001, then maybe, just maybe, the tragedy of that day could have been thwarted... We have been aware for many years that American citizens are hated and despised by most middle eastern countries. It is about time something was done to help protect the American citizen from their hate...

There is just too much at stake here and the risk is just too great to be walking around on eggshells when it comes to illegal immigrants from the middle east...

Who here would be able to absolutely guarantee that every single immigrant from middle eastern countries that is currently walking on our soil is NOT here to destroy us? Can anyone point them out or distingush them from the other middle eastern immigrants who are here legally and for non-violent reasons? Our government is trying to minimize the risk all Americans face because of our open door policy to people of other nations. It's great that we welcome them, but it would be down right negligent to refuse to recognize the potential for disaster some of these immigrants pose...

Meme9

Thursday, November 29, 2001 - 10:24 am Click here to edit this post
If people are in the USA illegally, sent them home, IMO, they are not citizens and do not have the same liberties that citizens do. Having said that, if they are here illegally they have already broken the laws of our country.
If people are following in the footsteps of terrorism or have shown acts that are of concern, IMO, detain them until it is clear what they are up to.
Think about it do you want our future generations to live like they do in countries where they can't understand the meanings of peace, and compromise.
I know some of you will not agree with me, but that is OK, because I am a citizen and with that, I have the freedom of speech. If you are a citizen then you have the same...to disagree or agree.
If you are not a citizen then take the a**holes to your country and you make them behave.
JMHO

Kep421

Thursday, November 29, 2001 - 10:31 am Click here to edit this post
I agree with you Meme9!

I think it is about time that the rights of American citizens be given priority over those of non-citizens and if any one wants the same protection, they should earn it by becoming citizens.

You want the same rights afforded to American citizens under our consitution? Then become and American citizen and enjoy. Too many immigrants are allowed the peace and protection of this country while their loyalties and interest lay elsewhere in another country.

Its about time Americans come first in their own country.

Meme9

Thursday, November 29, 2001 - 10:38 am Click here to edit this post
Thank you Kep421. Sometimes as Americans we don't speak up because we don't want to offend someone. Well, now is the time to speak!

Carigsby

Thursday, November 29, 2001 - 10:59 am Click here to edit this post
Absolutely, Meme9 and Kep! We are granted the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. If we allow our enemies to live among us while they are planning the destruction of our great nation - then we are denying ourselves our basic rights. I am a firm believer that all humans should be treated fairly and with respect. However, the terrorists who are out to fight, wreak havoc and fear into the people of our country are not granted those freedoms under our constitution and our government has an obligation to protect us in any way.

The laws that have been enacted to help in the search of terrorists have outlined very specifically the definition of terrorist and the course of action in dealing with a suspected terrorist. These actions do not pertain to American citizens. US citizens can not be questioned, detained or sought in the same fashion as suspected terrorists. Our government outlined the Patriot Act in this way to protect it's citizens and I am both thankful and proud of that.

Highlander

Thursday, November 29, 2001 - 11:24 am Click here to edit this post
I remember after the hijackers identies were released and the fact that some were on expired visa, everyone was demanding to know how is it that someone could be in this country with an expired visa and nobody follows up to be sure they leave the country.

Certainly in NY illegal immigrants are rounded up in raids targetting certain ethnic neighborhoods and businesses (chinese restaurants, irish bars, sweat shops) and this has been the practice for years. Once an illegal alien is apprehended he is taken to a holding facility which is located downtown and he/she stays in jail till the deportation hearing and through appeals as well. The reason they are held in custody is because they are flight risks. Lets face it if they didnt renew visas and were here illegally what makes anyone think they arent going to disappear again.

So what is the big deal with going to an arab neighborhood looking for illegal aliens if it is ok to go to a Colombian neighborhood in Jackson Heights, or to go to a chinese restaurant kitchen? This has been the standard practice for decades. Sure it is racial profiling, they are looking for illegal, dominicans, chinese, irish and in the arab/asian neighborhoods they are looking for pakistanis, algerians, etc.

If it violates their rights to be held due to immigration violations then you should also be fighting for the africans, chinese, dominicans, and colombians that are sitting in jails in this country for the same reason. Arabs dont have more rights than they do.

Carigsby

Thursday, November 29, 2001 - 11:48 am Click here to edit this post
You are right, Highlander. Thanks for the insight and info!

Karuuna

Thursday, November 29, 2001 - 11:56 am Click here to edit this post
The big deal is that they are NOT going to those other places to find illegals from other countries. They are NOT asking Chinese, Indian, or Irish students to come in for *voluntary* interviews.

Many of the people being held are *legal* aliens. The only "immigration" violations they have on them are speeding tickets. This is not something that used to be prosecuted.

As for interpretations of the Patriot Act, you should read it for yourself. Yes, it says that it should apply only to "terrorist aliens", and that Ashcroft must charge them with a crime or release them within 7 days.

And it says they may continue to be detained ONLY if they are considered a "risk to national security".

Now, tell me exactly how someone who lied about knowing the terrorists, and then thought better of it and told the truth is a "risk to national security"? The justice dept had a chance to prove his connection, and was completely unable. We even have an ex-president who lied under oath AND to the grand jury who never spent a day in prison, let alone 2-1/2 months.

As we've seen thru Ashcroft's list of crimes charged -- hundreds of those being detained have been charged with crimes that have NOTHING to do with terrorism. They are being held under the conditions of this new law for mostly minor violations; or the vague "material witness" charge.

Let's revisit this student who lied about knowing the terrorists. One would think that in a country like America, with its vast history on human rights and fairness in the justice system, someone who casually knew the terrorists would have nothing to worry about if they told the truth. They would not have to worry that they would be questioned for days without an attorney present, or held for months without being charged with any serious crime, or that they would be treated as a potential terrorist without one shred of evidence indicating such, or that their private conversations with their attorney would be monitored, or that they would be left unprotected against the prejudiced wrath of other inmates, or that they would be forced to go to court at the cost of thousands of dollars to prove their innocence...

Oh wait. That's exactly what happened! I'm sure that other targetted groups are eager to get into voluntary interviews now. I'm sure they are absolutely convinced that they will be treated fairly.... NOT.

Ocean_Islands

Thursday, November 29, 2001 - 12:12 pm Click here to edit this post
The point of the article is that, if this so-called "Patriot Act" is to identify and hold terrorists, then why are the majority of those being held not accused of terrorism?

Yes, some have broken laws (and many of these laws are infrequently enforced).

This over-kill legislation is being used to hold people who don't fall under its guidelines. It's not even being applied properly.

Grooch

Thursday, November 29, 2001 - 12:23 pm Click here to edit this post
Karuuna, you said "And it says they may continue to be detained ONLY if they are considered a "risk to national security."

I'm guessing that Ashcroft considers anyone who is a middle eastern and/or Muslim is a threat to national security. So I guess that's why they are being detained.

Sounds like a lot of people think the same thing.

And for the record, I don't have a problem with people being deported if they are here illegally. But not everyone is a flight risk. It depends on the situation, and if America is as great that we all say it is, we as citizens should make sure their basic human rights are being met. Meaning that they have access to a lawyer, that they get to see an immigration judge within a reasonable amount of time to determine if they are a risk or should be detained. (Don't forget, some illegal immigrants are married to American citizens and their staus hasn't been changed yet, or they could have American born children, own property, etc, etc. People with ties to the country are most likely not going to be disappearing in the middle of the night.)

I am not favoring Middle Eastern illegal aliens over anyone else. I am afraid that their rights are being denied and lost which doesn't seem to be happening to other ethnic groups.

I also believe that the Govt is losing an opportunity to find out more information about the terrorists because I am sure any muslim that has any information at all is now to terrified to go to authorities because they might be detained indefinetly. If I was in their situation, I know I wouldn't go now.

The arguement in this thread isn't about deporting illegal aliens. It's about losing civil and human rights. Right now they want to be able to listen to lawyer/client conversations of suspected terrorists. And as I said before, Ashcroft is throwing everyone into that category. If he is allowed to do that for them, then everyone should be concerned that one day it will be allowed for anyone.

At least, that is what I am arguing about in this thread.

Also, I am sure must immigrants would love to be citizens, but for one reason or another can't.

Carigsby

Thursday, November 29, 2001 - 12:37 pm Click here to edit this post
I have read the document for myself - as a matter of fact, I was the one who provided the link so that everyone else could read it. Someone said that it gave Ashcroft the power to hold suspects idefinitely without charge and this simply is not true.

And, the people who are being held on charges or issues other than terrorism, they are not being held under the Patiort Act, but under immigration laws.

Grooch - I am hoping that your "apparently a lot of people do" jab isn't directed towards anyone in this thread because I have not seen any comments that could lead you to believe that any of us feel that all middle eastern people or Muslims are threats. You can not deny, though, that our main threat are people of this decent. And while not all middle easterns or Muslims are to blame - the ones who are to blame are all middle easterns and Muslims.

And, as far as the man who lied about knowing the terrorists is concerned - why in the hell did he lie about knowing them to begin with??? I can understand why he would be considered a suspicion. After all, all he's been doing is lying. I'm glad they detained him until the found out for sure if the was an actual threat. And, someone who knew the terrorists may have valuable information that our country's leaders need to know.

Grooch

Thursday, November 29, 2001 - 12:37 pm Click here to edit this post
From the Drudge Report:

Ashcroft Accused Of 'Global Internet Power Grab'
Thu Nov 29 2001 10:14:02 ET

BUSINESS WEEK reported under the headline, "Ashcroft's Global Internet Power-Grab," that a "new law lets the Justice Department go after foreign hackers, even if U.S. computers weren't a target," and asks whether the US should be the global cyber police.

In fresh editions, BUSINESS WEEK added: "An amendment to the definition of a 'protected computer' for the first time explicitly enables U.S. law enforcement to prosecute computer hackers outside the United States in cases where neither the hackers nor their victims are in the U.S., provided only that packets related to that activity traveled through U.S. computers or routers.

"This remarkable amendment is to the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act, which Congress enacted in 1984 to prohibit conduct that damages a 'Federal interest computer,' defined at the time as 'a computer owned or used by the United States Government or a financial institution,' or, 'one of two or more computers used in committing the offense, not all of which are located in the same State...
"Under the Department of Justice's interpretation of this legislation, a computer hacker in Frankfurt Germany who hacks into a computer in Cologne Germany could be prosecuted in the Eastern District of Virginia in Alexandria if the packet related to the attack traveled through America Online's computers. Moreover, the United States would reserve the right to demand that the extradition of the hacker even if the conduct would not have violated German law, or to, as it has in other kinds of cases, simply remove the offender forcibly for trial. What is perhaps the most troubling about this legislation, in addition to the lack of any debate or focus on it, is the fact that the Department of Justice manual simply says that this unprecedented power will be used in 'appropriate cases.' The Department of Justice provides no guidance to prosecutors or citizens of the world what kinds of cases it will deem to be 'appropriate' for the expanded jurisdiction."

BUSINESS WEEK concludes: "Every country has the right to protect its own citizens, property and interests. No country has the right to impose its will, its values, its mores or laws on conduct that occurs outside its borders even if they may have a tangential effect on that country. The new legislation permits the U.S. government to do just that, and is unwise and unwarranted."

Kep421

Thursday, November 29, 2001 - 12:52 pm Click here to edit this post
Excellent point Highlander!!! The fact that the civil libertarians never thought of the search for illegal immigrants as a violation of American's rights before now, supports my suspicion that they are more concerned with following their own agenda than protecting my constitutional rights.

And as far as using racial profiling as a way of finding suspected terrorists, just how stupid would our government be to start searching for terrorists in areas where illegal Mexicans are known to live and work, especially since we have never seen hordes of Mexicans marching in Mexico City, burning effigies of our leaders and shouting "Death to America"?

Just where do the civil libertarians think we should look for possible terrorists? Should we be hauling all immigrant Asians in for questioning because they may be under cover Islamic extremists?

Please, give me a break. I don't think these terrorists are hiding anywhere but in the Arab communities located all over America. The only way to catch them is to cast out nets and haul in as many suspects as possible and then release those who have not violated our immigration or criminal laws.

Meme9

Thursday, November 29, 2001 - 01:12 pm Click here to edit this post
Well said Kep. That is about as simple as it, and that's just what it amounts to. I could not agree more. I want my goverment to protect me and mine. Not them and those(refering to the terrorist). (by the way I have an in-law that is Arabic so you see, I am looking at it from both sides).

Grooch

Thursday, November 29, 2001 - 01:20 pm Click here to edit this post
Carigsby, it was not meant as a jab. I was stating how I feel. And I feel that way from a combination from posts here, and things I hear people saying in real life. In real life I hear people constantly saying that they should just ship back all middle easterners and be done with it. No more problems

I should have made a distinction too. I should have said that I think most people think they are a "potential threat", not "a threat". If I offended anyone, I apologize.

If people agree with the US govt to throwing a huge net out and hauling in all the "men who made the list based on their ages, country of origin and length of time in the United States", I feel that they think all people on this list are potential threats. From that paragraph from an article listed above, I don't see them hauling in just illegal aliens. It sounds like any Middle Easterner that fits that criteria.

As to Ashcroft, I feel that he considers them a threat.

And I wonder, after he gets done going through his list of illegal and legal aliens, will he start targeting naturalized American citizens.

Ok, I'm babbling now. So it's time for me to quit for today.

Highlander

Thursday, November 29, 2001 - 01:26 pm Click here to edit this post
cnn.com


WASHINGTON (AP) -- A Palestinian with a kit to make box cutters and a Pakistani interested in hunting near a nuclear facility are among 603 people detained by U.S. terrorism investigators, government documents show.

Others were held for alleged violations with no obvious connection to past or future attacks, according to documents reviewed by The Associated Press.

Attorney General John Ashcroft revealed Tuesday the government was detaining 603 people. He insisted the actions removed suspected terrorists from the streets and nabbed members of Osama bin Laden's network.

"We will use every constitutional tool to keep suspected terrorists locked up," Ashcroft told a news conference. He went beyond previous statements that some 1,100 people had been detained since September 11 and that a majority remained in custody. He said 104 people have been charged with federal crimes in the probe.

In his most detailed public accounting yet, Ashcroft released the names of those facing federal charges but he refused to provide names for the hundreds held on immigration violations.

"I am not interested in providing, when we are at war, a list to Osama bin Laden and the al Qaeda network of the people we have detained that would make any easier their effort to kill Americans," the attorney general said.

One lawmaker pressing for more disclosures wasn't satisfied.

"I continue to be deeply troubled by (the Justice Department's) refusal to provide a full accounting of everyone who has been detained and why," Sen. Russell Feingold, D-Wisconsin, said.

Several former high-ranking FBI officials interviewed by The Washington Post suggested the Justice Department was resurrecting tactics the government rejected in the late 1970s because they did not prevent terrorism and led to abuses of civil liberties.

One of the officials, former FBI Director William H. Webster, said Ashcroft's policy of pre-emptive arrests and detentions "carries a lot of risk with it. You may interrupt something, but you may not be able to bring it down. You may not be able to stop what is going on."

Attorney: Evidence has not been 'totally revealed'
One of those detained, Mohdar Mohamed Abdoulah, a 23-year-old San Diego college student from Yemen, originally was held as a material witness, meaning he may have information important to the investigation. He was arrested and taken to New York City for grand jury testimony about his acquaintance with a September 11 hijacker.

Abdoulah was returned to San Diego and charged with immigration violations. While a federal magistrate has granted Abdoulah his release on $500,000 bail, he remains in custody because property pledged for bail money is still $125,000 short, said his lawyer, Kerry Steigerwalt.

Steigerwalt has his own problems in defending his client. "The evidence has not been totally revealed by prosecutors," he said. "I don't know the strength of the case."

The lawyer's job is further complicated because of a new Justice Department policy to monitor conversations between detainees and their lawyers.

"There is a camera position right above us recording our entire encounter," Steigerwalt said of his meetings with Abdoulah in the Metropolitan Correctional Center in San Diego. "This certainly has had a chilling effect on what we discussed."

Another case involves a Pakistani man who took video footage of the World Trade Center a few days before the September 11 attacks. Raza Nasir Khan was accused by federal agents in Wilmington, Delaware, with being an illegal immigrant who possessed firearms, documents show.

A Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms affidavit also alleged the Pakistani man requested maps of a hunting area near a rural Salem County, New Jersey, nuclear power plant and had a handheld global positioning system device.

The magistrate who ordered Khan held said she didn't see any connection to terrorism.

Few documents mention September 11 link
In fact, few of the hundreds of pages of supporting documents provided to Congress mentioned a connection with the September 11 attacks.

In Northern California, an Immigration and Naturalization Service affidavit alleged that Nabil Sarama, a Palestinian, made a false statement to obtain a permanent residency card. Sarama was arrested September 16 in Orlando, Florida, after police found him near a pay phone that had been used to make bomb threats, the documents alleged.

A search of his suitcase, the affidavit said, turned up a kit capable of making between eight and 12 box cutters -- like the weapons used by the September 11 hijackers. He also had a California Department of Motor Vehicles identification card, a Georgia driver's license, four Florida identification cards and a Palestinian Authority passport.

Government computer records show that between 1994 and 2001, Sarama entered the United States on at least five occasions through at least five ports and also used passports from Israel and Jordan.

Many of the court papers given to Congress charged individuals with non-terrorist crimes, including child pornography, Social Security fraud, illegal firearm possession, credit card fraud and immigration violations. One alleged possession of more than $40,000 worth of stolen Kellogg's cereals.

Ashcroft disclosed that the 603 people in custody consisted of 55 held on federal criminal charges and 548 on immigration violations. Forty-nine others who have been charged with crimes are either being sought or have been released on bond, officials said.

Ashcroft did not mention some key suspects, including Mohammed Jaweed Azmath and Ayub Ali Khan, arrested aboard a train in Texas. Authorities said the two were carrying box cutters, cash and hair dye, and had shaved their bodies of hair as was recommended by hijacking ringleader Mohamed Atta.

Also left off his list was Zacarias Moussaoui, a French-Algerian, detained in Minnesota after raising suspicions by seeking training on how to fly large jetliners.

Ocean_Islands

Thursday, November 29, 2001 - 01:28 pm Click here to edit this post
"Please, give me a break. I don't think these terrorists are hiding anywhere but in the Arab communities located all over America."

No. Two of the terrorists who hijacked the planes used in the 911 attacks were housed by law-abiding, non-Arab, non-immigrant Americans in Florida.

Highlander

Thursday, November 29, 2001 - 01:38 pm Click here to edit this post
All I know is I have no problem with them finding a palestinian based on an immigration violation only to discover that he had the makings of box cutters, passports from three different countries, identification cards from three different states and evidence of his entering the us through five different ports. So if they are holding him in jail based on an immigration violation, I dont have a problem with that.

The fact is that most of those being held are being held on immigration violations, expired visas, student visas but never having attended a class (sound familiar?). If someone could send me the link or give me some proof on where someone is sitting in a jail for a speeding ticket, I would appreciate it. What is wrong with holding people on immigration violations?

Kep421

Thursday, November 29, 2001 - 01:41 pm Click here to edit this post
Yes OI, but that was before the attacks.

They would be much more conspicuous now, and I don't think any of the remaining terrorists want to be consipicuous now.

Karuuna

Thursday, November 29, 2001 - 01:56 pm Click here to edit this post
Kep -- Highlander's article makes my point. ASHCROFT is holding them "for alleged violations with no obvious connection to past or future attacks, according to documents reviewed by The Associated Press."

These are just misc., trumped-up charges to hold them for virtually no reason, under a law that was meant to detain "terrorist aliens".

The young man who lied did so for obvious reason. He was afraid he would not be treated fairly. And he was not. He was not held under immigration violations, he was not even held because he lied. He was held because he was considered a "flight risk". Gee, a flight risk for being prosecuted for lying, and then correcting his story? Yeah, that's a clear national security risk. (sarcasm intended)

I defy anyone to name another case where someone was held as a flight risk because he may not stick around to be prosecuted for lying, and then telling the truth. And please show me how this makes him a "terrorist alien."

Please be very clear about this. A UNITED STATES COURT said the justice department had ZERO evidence linking this man to terrorism. And that the US COURT was APALLED that he was being held as a flight risk. Yet this man was being held under Ashcroft's jurisdiction, like many others, under a law that was meant to detain only those who were a RISK to national security.