Archive through November 28, 2001

The ClubHouse: Archive: Ashcroft abusing broad war powers: Archive through November 28, 2001

Ocean_Islands

Tuesday, November 27, 2001 - 02:03 pm Click here to edit this post
Human rights is a very serious matter, and Attorney General Ashcroft has some answering to do for his using war powers when Congress has not declared the U.S. to be at war, as required by constitutional guidelines.

This is how dictators take control of a country. Contact your local representation to speak out for your rights.

If Ashcroft or Bush believe you have committed a criminal act, you could be tried and executed in secrecy without any proper legal representation.

There's no way all these people are guilty of terrorism.


November 27, 2001

INVESTIGATION
More Than 550 Held on Terror Suspicion
By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS

WASHINGTON (AP) -- Attorney General John Ashcroft announced Tuesday his department continues to detain more than 550 people on immigration violations or other federal charges in the terrorism investigation, and some are believed to be members of Osama bin Laden's network.

Ashcroft said those detained were rounded up in a ``deliberate campaign of arrests'' designed to disrupt terrorist activities and protect Americans.

``With arrests and detentions, we have avoided further terrorist attacks. ... America's defenses have grown stronger,'' he said.

Ashcroft said that a number of individuals being detained are suspected terrorists, adding, ``I don't want to be more specific.''

The attorney general's announcement was the first accounting of people in federal custody in several weeks. Previously, the government had said only that it detained or arrested more than 1,100 people without identifying them or saying which remained in custody.

Ashcroft said the terrorism investigation had charged 104 people with federal crimes, and that 55 of those remained in custody. In addition, he said, 548 people remain in custody on immigration charges, some of whom are also charged with federal crimes.

The announcement comes amid concerns in Congress and among civil rights groups about the secrecy surrounding those who have been detained, most of whom are believed to be of Middle Eastern descent.

Ashcroft defended the secrecy, including the fact that most of the names of the detainees have not been public, saying he wanted to protect the privacy of people who may be innocent and prevent bin Laden from gaining valuable information.

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

On Monday, Ashcroft said he also was protecting the privacy of detainees. ``I'm not going to develop some sort of blacklist,'' he said.

His remarks Monday prompted complaints from civil rights groups who have urged the Justice Department to disclose more information about those detained or arrested in the terrorism investigation.

``It is ironic that the government is now concerned about rights when it has arrested and jailed hundreds of people without giving the American public any proof that the detainees are being treated fairly and consistent with the protections of the Constitution and Bill of Rights,'' said Lucas Guttentag, head of the American Civil Liberties Union's immigration rights project.

Ashcroft's refusal came as the terrorism investigation advanced overseas and a federal agent in Virginia described a possible motive for one of the 19 hijackers on Sept. 11. FBI Special Agent Jesus Gomez said suspected terrorist ringleader Mohammed Atta blamed the United States for most of the world's wars.

``Atta felt that the U.S. was responsible for most of the wars being fought in the world,'' Gomez said during an abbreviated preliminary hearing in Alexandria, Va., federal court for Agus Budiman, an Indonesian man whom prosecutors believe was a close associate of Atta.

Budiman, 31, had contacts with Atta and another hijacker, Marwan al-Shehhi, Gomez told a judge at Budiman's detention hearing. The agent did not specify how he learned of Atta's beliefs about America.

Budiman also was associated with Ramsi Binalshibh, who the FBI says was meant to be the 20th hijacker. Binalshibh twice tried unsuccessfully to use his association with Budiman as a means to enter the United States, Gomez said.

Binalshibh, a Yemeni citizen who had been living in Hamburg, is the subject of an international manhunt.

Budiman is facing document fraud charges unrelated to Sept. 11, but prosecutors suspect that the man Budiman allegedly helped to obtain a fake Virginia ID card, Mohammad Bin Nasser Belfas, is a contact for bin Laden, suspected of directing the terror attacks.

Budiman's court-appointed attorney disqualified himself after Gomez testified about the man's links to the terrorists. The lawyer, a retired Army officer, said he had friends who died Sept. 11 when hijackers crashed an American Airlines jet into the Pentagon.

Ivan Yacub, Budiman's immigration lawyer, said his client only knew Atta casually and had not seen Atta since he came to the United States in October 2000.

Most of the more than 1,100 people arrested or detained by federal or state authorities are being held on immigration violations; others are charged with unrelated criminal offenses or are being held as material witnesses.

Civil liberties groups and members of Congress have asked the Justice Department to disclose information about the detainees, where they are being held and whether they have been released. The department has demurred, citing grand jury rules, judges' orders and privacy concerns.

Ocean_Islands

Wednesday, November 28, 2001 - 07:40 am Click here to edit this post
Criticism does make a difference. Ashcroft has made some concessions today, but important questions remain.

November 28, 2001

THE INVESTIGATION
Ashcroft Offers Accounting of 641 Charged or Held
By NEIL A. LEWIS and DON VAN NATTA Jr.

The Associated Press

WASHINGTON, Nov. 27 — Faced with growing criticism over his refusal to identify people jailed since the Sept. 11 attacks, Attorney General John Ashcroft today provided for the first time the names of 93 people charged with crimes arising from the government's investigation.

Mr. Ashcroft also released an accounting of the 548 people, most from Middle Eastern countries, who remain in custody across the United States on immigration charges that arose in the terror investigation. But that list included only the nationalities and the charges — not the names.

Still, today's announcement was the Justice Department's most detailed disclosure about the people who have been arrested in the terror investigation, and it follows several days of harsh criticism by elected officials, civil libertarians and others of the government's tactics.

Mr. Ashcroft spoke a day before the Senate Judiciary Committee is to begin hearings into the government's law-enforcement efforts, including the detention of hundreds of people on immigration charges and the continuing interviews of 5,000 Muslim men.

The committee's chairman, Senator Patrick J. Leahy, a Vermont Democrat, has been among the most persistent critics of Mr. Ashcroft's tactics, and the attorney general's comments today seemed intended to deflect some of the criticism the Bush administration is likely to face.

Mr. Ashcroft, who is expected to testify before the committee next week, insisted that rights have been protected. "While I am aware of various charges being made by organizations and individuals about the actions of the Justice Department," he said, "I have yet to be informed of a single lawsuit filed against the government charging a violation of someone's civil rights as a result of this investigation."

Of the 93 people named as criminal defendants, about 60 are in custody, a Justice Department list indicates. The others have been released on bond or are being sought. None have been charged with terrorism or involvement in the Sept. 11 attacks.

Most of the charges are relatively minor, like credit card fraud or making false statements when applying for passports. One man, Souhail Sarwer, is a fugitive wanted on charges of credit card fraud.

But Mr. Ashcroft pointed to several who seemed to have links to the 19 men suspected of hijacking the four planes used in the Sept. 11 attacks. One man, he noted, was charged with helping two of the suspected hijackers obtain fraudulent identification cards, while the names of two other men were found in a car left by another suspected hijacker at Dulles International Airport.

One of the men whose name was found in the car, Osama Awadallah, a 21-year-old college student, was granted bail today in New York by a federal judge who questioned the strength of the government's case against him. Mr. Awadallah has been charged with lying before a grand jury when he denied knowing Khalid al-Midhar, one of the men suspected of hijacking the plane that crashed into the Pentagon, and prosecutors had sought to hold him without bail.

But the judge, Shira A. Scheindlin of Federal District Court in Manhattan, ruled that he could be released on $500,000 bond, saying, "this defendant is charged with making false declarations — not with terrorism, or aiding and abetting terrorism, or conspiring with terrorists."

The identities of many of the 93 people had already been released, including the 22 men charged in October with obtaining fraudulent licenses to drive commercial trucks loaded with hazardous materials. Most of those men were charged in Pittsburgh, and remain in custody.

While providing the new numbers and details, Mr. Ashcroft continued to withhold the identities of 548 people arrested for immigration violations. He said he was required to release only the names of those charged with criminal violations, except for 11 people whose arrests have been sealed by a federal judge.

Mr. Ashcroft said that some of the 600 in jail were members of Al Qaeda and that their arrest had probably foiled additional attacks. He would not say how many or give their names, but law enforcement officials suggested they were mostly the 11 held under seal, mostly in New York.

Mr. Ashcroft asserted that the law allowed him to withhold the names of those charged under the immigration code. They were identified in a separate list only by their places of birth, the immigration violations they are charged with and the dates they were arrested. Of the 548, the greatest number, 208 were from Pakistan with the next largest group, 74, from Egypt.

Mr. Ashcroft seemed irked with the complaints about the Justice Department's withholding details. He said he was not releasing the names of those charged with immigration violations because that would aid Osama bin Laden by revealing which associates were in custody.

"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," Mr. Ashcroft said.

"We might as well mail this list to the Osama bin Laden Al Qaeda network as to release it. The Al Qaeda network may be able to get information about which terrorists we have in our custody, but they'll have to get it on their own."

On Monday, he had said he would not release the names of those arrested because it would violate their privacy rights and would damage their reputations by putting them on a kind of blacklist.

Mr. Ashcroft's actions today did not appear to silence some critics. Senator Russell D. Feingold, a Wisconsin Democrat and member of the Judiciary Committee, said, "While I appreciate the Justice Departments finally providing a rough estimate of the number people who are currently in detention, I continue to be deeply troubled by its refusal to provide a full accounting of everyone who has been detained and why."

Mr. Feingold said the administration's stand on releasing information on the detainees was part of a larger problem involving plans for military tribunals and authorizing eavesdropping on conversations between some lawyers and terrorist suspects.

Mr. Ashcroft today sought to portray the administration's actions as well aimed at what he said was the government's greatest priority, preventing future terrorist actions.

"We are standing firm in our commitment to protect American lives," he said. "The Department of Justice is waging a deliberate campaign of arrest and detention to protect American lives, and we're removing suspected terrorists who violate the law from our streets to prevent further terrorist attack. We believe we have Al Qaeda membership in custody, and we will use every constitutional tool to keep suspected terrorists locked up."

He said all of those detained had access to a lawyer and were able to contact their families.

Ten to 15 defendants are being held as material witnesses, with most in a federal detention center in New York. Among them is Zacarias Moussaoui, a 33-year-old French citizen of Moroccan descent who was arrested in Minnesota on Aug. 17. Senior Bush administration officials are debating whether to make Mr. Moussaoui the first person to be tried on terrorism charges before a military tribunal.

The group also includes Nabil al- Marabh, a former Boston cabdriver whom an informer linked to Mr. bin Laden, and Ayub Ali Khan and Mohammed Azmath, who were carrying box cutters and at least $5,000 in cash when they were arrested aboard a train in Texas on Sept. 11.

Carigsby

Wednesday, November 28, 2001 - 08:11 am Click here to edit this post
If the people are being detained because of immigration violation and they may be deported - good. I think immigration laws should be heavily enforced anyway and if it took the attacks on 9/11 to do it, that's fine by me.

If the people are being detained because they have committed a crime and they can't post bail - that is their problem just as it would be any of our problem if we committed a crime and couldn't post bail. These people are going before a judge and I can't see what good it would do for these hearings to be public. We are at war and if these peoples crimes are related (or even possibly related) to the attacks or future attacks on our country - I think it is very niave and quite honestly, stupid, to release details of their crimes to the public when it could aid in the planning of future attacks.

Well done, Ashcroft, on rounding these people up. If they are not quilty it will come out in court. But in order for charges to be filed, it first needs to be determined that there is enough evidence to go to trial.

Twiggyish

Wednesday, November 28, 2001 - 09:50 am Click here to edit this post
Three people at the local flying school near my home (where Atta also trained), were detained and sent home with illegal or expired visas. They were Muslim.
Carigsby, I agree with you about rounding up criminals.
OI, I know some innocent people will also be detained and for them, I feel compassion. But, this has to be done, in order to secure our country.

Grooch

Wednesday, November 28, 2001 - 09:52 am Click here to edit this post
Carigsby, I think part of the problem regarding the people rounded up is that the govt is moving them from place to place. Their lawyers and families are not even being told where they are. Their lawyers can't even talk to them.

I heard that a group of Jewish immigrants were rounded up and held for a while because neighbors heard them speaking Hebrew and they thought they were middle eastern. They were not allowed to see anyone during this time.

This is what is scary and is an abuse of power. Anyone can come along and make up something up about someone, and that person can be held and detained and no one knows what is going on. This is starting a scary precedent.

Yes, something must be done, but there need to be checks and balances. And things need to be done out in the open.

jmo.

Twiggyish

Wednesday, November 28, 2001 - 10:17 am Click here to edit this post
Now that is overboard! Ashcroft has to be careful not to turn this into a witch hunt!

I can see in this case, it is very scary.

Carigsby

Wednesday, November 28, 2001 - 10:26 am Click here to edit this post
This isn't starting a precedent. When I was a reporter, we used to joke that all it takes to bring charges against someone is $35. In our small town we only had a handful of police officers and generally only 5 or 6 on duty at a time - you could accuse anyone of anything and as long as the county attorney was willing to listen to you, charges could be brought against anyone. That's what court is for - someone accused someone of something - that person came before a judge and a the judge made the decision as to if there was enough (if any) evidence to bring that person to trial. In trial, the judge and jury decided if that person was innocent or guilty.

Also (and I mean no offense by this) but I can't accept a story as truth because you heard it somewhere. Honestly, I don't accept a story as truth just because the news media reports on it. (After all, the news media reported as fact for hours that Camp David had been hit by a plane on 9/11)

There are security measures for our country that need to be exercised during this time and when trying suspected terrorists or those suspected of having knowledge of the terrorist activity. Can you not imagine how detremental it would be to have all of this information out in the open? Court cases are sealed and closed to the public all the time. They were closed way before 9/11 and they will be closed long after. Some information, quite frankly, isn't the general public's business. Especially when our country's safety is on the line.

Carigsby

Wednesday, November 28, 2001 - 10:34 am Click here to edit this post
I'm sorry - I forgot to address the moving around part. I don't enough enough details - but I can understand moving these people around if they are considered threats. If they are kept in the same place and that place gets leaked (by family or lawyers) then that place is a potential target. I feel that they should have contact with at least their lawyers (and I am sure that after they arrive at a new location their lawyers are contacted). I think it would be a pretty dumb move to let the lawyers know where they are going, when they are going and how they are going to get there. Talk about security breach.

We are at war, people. This is very serious. I have not heard anything that has been done that comes close to the atrocities committed during WW2 or the McCarthy hearings. Those were witch hunts. And, if innocent people are being detained and eventually released (as I imagine many already have been) then I bet they are quite glad their names weren't circulated in the press.

Whoami

Wednesday, November 28, 2001 - 10:42 am Click here to edit this post
This isn't starting a precedent at all. Doesn't anyone remember how Japanese Americans were all rounded up and put into internment camps after Pearl Harbor?

Yes, something needs to be done to protect this nation from the fanatical people in Bin Lauden's camp. But we need to be very careful we don't embarass ourselves as a nation and repeat our errors.

Grooch

Wednesday, November 28, 2001 - 11:33 am Click here to edit this post
Carigsby, no offense taken. I remember reading a story on the internet about the Jewish people being detained. For the life of me, I can't remember what site it was. I just did a search on the AP site, but I couldn't find it after looking at 300 articles. So throw that example out. I will try to mention things that I can find a source for. And I agree that you can't believe that reporters write is the truth.

I don't have a problem with the Govt detaining people if they have a valid reason for it and that they do have access to their lawyers. It's the potential of abuse by the government that I am worried about. That is what we have to keep in check and balance.

He wants Military tribunals and to be able to eavedrop on the lawyers talking to their clients. Should he be allowed to do this or not?

<<Bush's order allowing secret military tribunals to try noncitizens has drawn fire from both Democrats and Republicans, as has Justice Department (news - web sites) approval of eavesdropping on conversations between defense lawyers and some terrorist suspects. >>

Link

Karuuna

Wednesday, November 28, 2001 - 12:27 pm Click here to edit this post
Okay, here are some facts:

A month ago, only slightly over 100 of the detainees had actually been charged with any crime. Under pressure, more of them have been charged. They were simply "held for questioning".

But under the recently enacted USA Patriot Act, that's okay. It gives the attorney general the power to arrest and detain non-citizens WITHOUT evidence. After 7 days, he can charge such detainees or deport them, again without evidence.

And legislation says specifically that the AG's custody "shall be maintained irrespective of any relief from removal for which the alien may be eligible, or any relief from removal granted the alien." So, no one can override the AG's decision, not even an immigration judge. Essentially, the detainees are denied due process of the law.

I have no problem with holding people with evidence. I also don't have a big problem with not releasing their names. However, if someone can be held *indefinitely* WITHOUT any supporting evidence. And they are denied any legal process which might end in their release, I think that's going way too far.

All hail King Ashcroft.

Grooch

Wednesday, November 28, 2001 - 12:29 pm Click here to edit this post
Thank you Karunna. :)

Car54

Wednesday, November 28, 2001 - 12:37 pm Click here to edit this post
Ocean, Karuuna, and Grooch- thank you so much for posting about this. Did anyone see the piece on the news (on NBC, I think) where now they are contacting EVERY middle eastern student and bringing them in for question regardless of their status, legality, etc. As of now it is voluntary, but pressure is being applied, and the piece showed some lawyers representing some of the people who were here legally, totally innocent, but scared to death.

If someone is here illegally, of course they should be sent home, and if there is a reason to hold them the law should allow them to be charged, but I am very disturbed by the way people are being targeted and then things done in secret.
Thanks for posting this.

Kep421

Wednesday, November 28, 2001 - 01:11 pm Click here to edit this post
The reason everyone thinks these people are being held without supporting evidence is because that evidence is not being released to anyone. Not family, friends, neighborhood priests, NOT ANY ONE. And that is what is really scaring everyone. Secrecy!!!!

Some people think that because the evidence against these detainees is not being made public there must be something to hide because after all hasn't the ACLU told us that the American Public has a right to know everything????? But during this crisis, should our government be forced to report everything? Should we put our country at risk because "secrecy" has become a dirty word in our political society?

I think it is wrong for everyone to assume that the detainees are being held illegally because information about these detainees is not being made public. How can anyone say for sure that they are being held illegally if the actual details of each case is not being released?

I believe that the civil liberties groups and members of Congress aren't upset over the fact that these people have been detained, I think they are upset because they can't get all the information they want. I also believe the ACLU and other committee's with their own agendas are trying to make our government officials release information by forcing them to defend themselves against bogus charges of doing something illegal.

I agree with Carigsby, our government officials, including "King Ashcroft", have a job to do and that job entails ensuring the security of our nation. I for one will wait for proof that something illegal is being done. I will trust in my government to do what is best for all of us and refuse to fall prey to the scare tatics of political agencies.

Carigsby

Wednesday, November 28, 2001 - 01:17 pm Click here to edit this post
I agree that there is potential for abuse - the potential for abuse is present in any given situation. That's why our forefathers didn't want the government to have too much power and why you are very right in saying that there need to be checks and balances.

I don't think, though, that these circumstances warrant good 'ole everyday U.S. justice.

From my perspective, I see this legislation as a loop-hole for those suspects for which there isn't enough concrete evidence. I think we can all say that there are certain situations that you can be 99.9% sure about, but finding the proof that will hold up in court is hard. Our court systems are set up with most of the power going to the accused and the burden of proof lying in the prosecutions hands. If the evidence for the accused is such that it is incrimintory, but unusable based on our justice system then these alleged criminals will walk free (and some may walk right onto a plane and fly it into another building). If the evidence that our government is holding on these detainees is such that it falls under a circumstance like this, I think this type of legislation is very much necessary. If you get one tip about someone that you can immediately detain and spend the next week finding hard evidence, I think it is worth it to the safety of our country.

Now, at the same time I do think that there should be stern time limits and litmus tests to help limit the potential for abuse - but I feel that actions such as these are necessary at this time.

Carigsby

Wednesday, November 28, 2001 - 01:20 pm Click here to edit this post
Good point, Kep. Just because there is secrecy - doesn't mean there is wrong-doing.

Lancecrossfire

Wednesday, November 28, 2001 - 01:37 pm Click here to edit this post
It also doesn't mean there isn't any wrong doing. One of the things people (as a race) continue to do is not learn from past mistakes. People (as a race) are also very short sighted in their thinking when they have what is considered an important priority.

I'm thinking of the Japanese internment camps (as already brought up) and of the situation where we were making atomic and thermonuclear bombs.

The mind set was to "just get it done--whatever it took". At no time was such things as safety really a concern (except for criticality safety), nor dose, nor waste issues. That is why there are millions of gallons of high activity radioactive wastes in underground storage tanks that are 1) unknown as to content, 2) leaking all over the place, and 3) in very bad shape.

Just on the Hanford sight, well over a million gallons of liquid radioactive waste has gone into the ground from various locations on site.

It's the same kind of situation we are in now--a chance for people to only be worried about short term results, without caring about any future affects. Humans have a bad track record with this, and the scene is set for a repeat yet again.

I'd be interested to hear what anyone has to show to indicate otherwise; to show that history won't again repeat itself.

Kep421

Wednesday, November 28, 2001 - 01:55 pm Click here to edit this post
That may be true, Lance, but condemning our government for doing something illegal without proof is committing the exact crime everyone is accusing our government of.

It isn't right to accuse someone of something illegal without proof, but no one seems to think it is wrong to accuse our government of illegal practices without proof. Why is that? Why is it wrong to suspect someone of terrorism without proof yet it is perfectly ok to suspect our government of violating human rights without proof?

I don't buy into one political agency pointing fingers at other governmental agencies because there is always a motive or agenda that the accusing agency is trying to promote. I'll wait for the proof.

And as far as history repeating itself goes, I think that is exactly what Ashcroft is trying to do...his goal is to try and ensure that the history of Sept. 11, 2001 is not repeated.

Karuuna

Wednesday, November 28, 2001 - 01:58 pm Click here to edit this post
<<The reason everyone thinks these people are being held without supporting evidence is because that evidence is not being released to anyone. Not family, friends, neighborhood priests, NOT ANY ONE. And that is what is really scaring everyone. Secrecy!!!! >>

No, what scares me is the LAW that says NO evidence is necessary. The only thing necessary is that Ashcroft says they need to be detained. And there is absolutely no way to countermand that order, unless Ashcroft says so.

That completely flies in the face of a government that was set up with checks and balances in place, so that no one branch and no one person in government could have such authority.

Karuuna

Wednesday, November 28, 2001 - 02:02 pm Click here to edit this post
Kep the point is not that we're accusing them of doing something illegal. The point is that they have created and enacted a law to make holding someone *indefinitely* without proof absolutely legal. The law says Ashcroft never has to provide evidence, proof or reason. The law says that such detainees may continue to be held EVEN if a court finds there is no reason to hold them. The law says that all Ashcroft needs to do is *review the list of detainees every six months*. It does not say he EVER has to supply proof, make a decision, or anything else.

In other words, the law gives Ashcroft full authority to do whatever the heck he wants.

Lancecrossfire

Wednesday, November 28, 2001 - 02:04 pm Click here to edit this post
Kep, I'm not sure I was accusing our government of any such action. For my part, all I did was indicate it has happened before, and the scenario is there to happen again--with no checks in place to find out either way.

The situation exists for the government to take actions without any proof of any kind. The only thing yet to be determined is if has or will happen. So far, in any case where there is the mechanism to happen, it has.

I agree that Ashcroft doesn't want 9/11 to happen again. Neither do we, as far as I know. The question up for debate seems to be one of do we create a system where the end justifies any means possible.

Some will say yes, and some will say no.

Carigsby

Wednesday, November 28, 2001 - 02:07 pm Click here to edit this post
As far as envirornmental issues go - it is because of waste, irresponsibility and accidents of agencies and people in the past that there are environmental agencies and governing bodies today. Those type of issues are not at a risk of being repeated because appropriate measures were taken after the fact to help in making sure the same mistakes weren't made again.

And - I agree that the steps being taken today are helping to ensure that the history of 9/11 doesn't repeat itself and I'm all for that. No plan is guaranteed, but I seriously doubt that a decision for our country would be made without much contemplation and planning. We didn't go in and randomly bomb Afghanastan. We waited and gave them plenty of time to come to our terms. When they didn't, we went in strategically - it was a good plan and I feel that the right decisions to protect my life as a U.S. citizen are being made.

Kep421

Wednesday, November 28, 2001 - 02:12 pm Click here to edit this post
I understand what you're saying Karuuna, but its not the fact that Ashcroft can choose who to detain, its the fact that he doesn't have to tell you why he has detained them that is so scary...

How do you know Ashcroft doesn't have evidence against the people he has detained? Are you assuming he doesn't because he doesn't have to explain his actions? You obviously don't trust him, but that's your right and you probably have your reasons.

But really, what first hand knowledge do any of us have that he has actually has done anything illegal? I don't know of anything he's done, so that's why I don't believe he would just willy nilly pick up and deport people for absolutely no reason.

Grooch

Wednesday, November 28, 2001 - 02:12 pm Click here to edit this post
Thanks Lance and Karuuna. I'm in this thread to try and learn what actually is going on with our govt and this situation.

By the way, Carigsby, I read an article today (that I won't bother to link) that Ashcroft said that the detainees do have contact with their lawyers and families. At least he is on record of saying they do.

But, as Karuuna has pointed out, I guess it doesn't matter, because it sounds like Ashcroft can keep them jailed forever.

Karuuna

Wednesday, November 28, 2001 - 02:17 pm Click here to edit this post
Kep -- it's not the point that he doesn't have to tell *me*, it's the point that he doesn't have to *have* a reason. That's what the law says. I don't know if he has evidence or not. I do know the courts ruled today that one fellow who lied about *knowing* the terrorists had to be let go, because Ashcroft was *unable* to provide any proof that this gentleman had any other connection to the terrorist acts.

However, according to the law, Ashcroft doesn't have to let him go, if he doesn't want to. In spite of the fact that he has no reason to hold him, and in spite of the fact that the court said he should be let go.

Is that specific enough?