American Stasi?

Hobbes

That post deserves an .





http://www.boston.com/dailyglobe2/200/oped/Bush_s_snoop_troops+.shtml

Originally posted by Bob the Unlucky Octopus


Illegally held? Not so- if they're being held under suspicion of being terrorists then that's perfectly legal.

Sad but true. How about "Unjustly" held? Just because there is a law in place that allows you to detain people indefinately without charging or rights doesn't mean it's a good law.

Chances are, if you look at suicide bombers, the vast majority (perhaps even all) of them fit a certain ethno-centric profiling.

The people who crashed the planes didn't fit any of the profiles. At least two of them didn't even look middle eastern.

Racial profiling doesn't work, or maybe it does and every black guy in America in a rich car really is a drug dealer.

The thing your totally glossing over is that just because a person is detained doesn't automatically make them a terrorist. If it doesn't, then why should they be denied basic rights?

As far as legal advice goes- just as a crime boss should be barred from independent legal advice, so should terrorists be.

Erm, can you back that up that a crime boss is barred from obtaining legal advice?

Been there recently Dada? Well before TIPS was even a possibility on an analyst's drawing board, that culture of suspicion was born. Not because of a poorly drawn up executive pilot scheme, but because of two planes crashing into buildings that symbolized the spirit of the city they desecrated.

Yep, a few days after pretty much everyone was suspious of anyone not waving an American flag and blindly following the president to set in laws which no sane person would do.

As Sand has so nicely pointed out, people have been detained without TIPS being active, so if they are doing so well why are they setting it up?

Also you have to look at the double standards, while Bush expects civilians to spy on one another he has closed up access to loads of incriminating material relating to his office from ever been shown.

Greenbean

"Now a small point regarding profiling- it's the only effective way to deter or even attempt to prevent the sort of terrorism witnessed by the West on 9/11, and by the Israeli public most days of the week. Chances are, if you look at suicide bombers, the vast majority (perhaps even all) of them fit a certain ethno-centric profiling. If I'm a police officer looking (for example) for a Sicilian crime boss, chances are I won't be looking for a 6'11" African American build. I'll play the odds, because that's how cases are solved."

If a person happens to be within the profile and totally innocent, as most will be, then those innocents will have less rights than anyone else simply because of a steriotype or racial profile or whatnot. This is clearly wrong, unjust and not inline with notions of freedom for all people.

Just as we don't go to one extreme of totally avoiding questioning peoples of certain profile due to worrying about being perceived as racist, we don't go to the other end of the scale and accuse everyone of a certain profile. Where do we draw the line? We don't draw a line at all, we simply ignore the profile and work on proper evidence. That is if we are interested in keeping such "a priori" notions of equal rights for all men and women. We do it this way so that a person gets the benefit of the doubt like everyone else gets, innocent until prooven guilty. Can this need anymore clarification?

The "circumstances have changed" argument proves a lack of willingness to go through with beliefs when push comes to shove - these notions of equal rights should exist no-matter what the circumstances, otherwise it would be better to admit you don't really follow them.

Personally I don't believe I would be strong enough to uphold those values of "equal rights for all" in certain tough situations like september 11th or personal troubled experiences, but neither would I try insist that I was upholding them in the meantime. I would rather Bush would simply state many of the fundamental constitutional beliefs of old America are gone and there is no longer an interest in upholding them properly.

Bob the Unlucky Octopus

Originally posted by Hobbes
That post deserves an <snip>

Pfff, someone should make an "Inifinite Dimension of Post-count card" :P Seriously though, disparaging an argument relative to its length is dismissive of content, and improperly so. If every argument could be summed up in two sentences without diminishing its weight, politics(and indeed life) would be a simpler business. Given that doing so obviously denigrates the value of an argument(though not as much by waving it aside with a .gif), let's move on.


http://www.boston.com/dailyglobe2/200/oped/Bush_s_snoop_troops+.shtml

This article merely proves the point of my original post, that it is a ridiculous attempt to add to an already overworked intelligence community.

Sad but true. How about "Unjustly" held? Just because there is a law in place that allows you to detain people indefinately without charging or rights doesn't mean it's a good law.

Who decides what is "just" or "unjust"? Certainly not you or I- the law has been passed and is currently being tested in the courts. If the Supreme Court of the land upholds the government's actions then they are just. If the decision favors the individuals held they are unjust. Until such a test is applied, it is pointless trying to take a moral stand, as such a stand has no bearing on the case. The Human Rights Act was harshly criticized from the Bill to the Bailiff stage, but after it was tested, critics had to accept the courts' decisions. I for one, am content to let the judiciary decide whether or not it's a good law. That after all, is their job, if the law is ruled unjust or unConstitutional then so be it. I think it likely, that given the present state of affairs, the Supreme Court is prepared to give the executive a little latitude in how they exercise their powers.

The people who crashed the planes didn't fit any of the profiles. At least two of them didn't even look middle eastern.

You're forgetting that these hijackers worked in close-knit teams. If profiling could merely identify one man from each team then it has served its purpose.

Racial profiling doesn't work, or maybe it does and every black guy in America in a rich car really is a drug dealer.

Here's a simple idea- not every person who looks like an Arab is a terrorist, but 90% (2 out of roughly 20 hijackers not fitting the profile), NINETY PERCENT of terrorists look a certain way. Now I for one tend to think those sort of odds worth counting on. In other words, if someone is suspected of terrorism on legitimate and evidentiary grounds, law enforcement and intelligence will have to include such profiling into their investigation. Else they will diminish their already low chances of success.

The thing your totally glossing over is that just because a person is detained doesn't automatically make them a terrorist. If it doesn't, then why should they be denied basic rights?

Because recent history has shown us that if evidence points to the possibility of terrorism, then 9.4 out of 10 times the police have it exactly right. In other words, in almost every independent study into the matter, 94% of the people detained are either implicated, material witnesses or middlemen for a terrorist organization, or an organization which supports terror. Those again, seem to be odds worth counting on.

Erm, can you back that up that a crime boss is barred from obtaining legal advice?

I said should be, not is barred. They are allowed independent legal counsel, which is part of the reason why organized crime is able to flourish long after the (unlikely) conviction. In an ideal world I argue, such persons should only be permitted assigned counsel. While it doesn't eliminate inside operations, it certainly curbs them a great deal. By the same reasoning, allowing a terror suspect to seek independent counsel is a security threat, and an undeniable one.

Yep, a few days after pretty much everyone was suspious of anyone not waving an American flag and blindly following the president to set in laws which no sane person would do.

Even registered psychiatrists have trouble pronouncing the mental fitness of a single person to make a decision. You just seem to have done it for an entire nation. Hyperbole no doubt, but offensive to some I would imagine. What no sane person would do huh? Well, I'm guessing that with a fair old amount of national anger, plus the fact that compared to Europe, security laws and regulations are generally more lenient, changes had to be made. We just introduced legislation allowing the executive to detain under special circumstances, those suspected of terrorism.

This is no different from Britain, France, Germany, most European countries. Except that in Germany certain political persuasions are banned, and party members detained for up to 7 months without trial. In Switzerland it's a year, according to a former colleague of mine who acted for someone in those circumstances. I'm not saying we should have enacted it because the rest of Europe has done so. This legislation is needed to help expose and destroy a new and very real threat to US national security. Without it the executive are powerless to prevent threats from materializing. I only wonder why the UK has never been villified over the PTA, or France over the stupendously dictatorial powers of the DGSE regarding "l'objets de terrorisme externelle". I'm guessing they were, then people realized their necessity after the 7th plane hijacked in Paris by the GIA. If it weren't necessary, there wouldn't have been such a consensus in what is normally a viciously bipartisan legislature.

As Sand has so nicely pointed out, people have been detained without TIPS being active, so if they are doing so well why are they setting it up?

I explained the reasoning behind it in my last post fairly clearly. It gives you the citizen a point of direct contact with law enforcement agents who are more able to deal with your problem, and who are likely to take you seriously. Read my last post for an example of this.

Also you have to look at the double standards, while Bush expects civilians to spy on one another he has closed up access to loads of incriminating material relating to his office from ever been shown.

If reporting on suspicious events is spying, then we all live in surveillance states. What do you think the chances are of a police officer just happening to be in the same area when a crime is committed, hmm? Not very high- the vast majority of crimes are reported ones. Reporting possible criminal activity isn't the same as spying. Law enforcement should work with the community, at every level of the community- and of law enforcement. This is the philosophy behind crime prevention Hobbes. Rather than sending a forensic team to remove a dead body, you encourage people to report suspicious happenings so that we don't end up with another dead body. "Better to err in good faith than to suffer recriminations of the damned"- Mahatma Gandhi wrote those words. Even Gandhiji it would seem, realized that intentions and effectiveness are inseperable in policy terms- an idea some find hard to grasp. If we want our governments to prevent future events, we have to make sacrifices to help them do so. The fact that the current generation of youth in western europe know little of sacrifice and are intent on results without negative consequence to their selfish needs, is a sobering one.

Occy

Hobbes

Seriously though, disparaging an argument relative to its length is dismissive of content, and improperly so.

Ohh Pfft get a sense of humor. If I thought your post was a long string of tripe I would of said so, it was just long (The Bob signature of writing )

Who decides what is "just" or "unjust"? Certainly not you or I-

Actually you do. You vote in the people who make the laws, and in some cases (at least in Ireland) you get to vote on if the law should be passed or not. Isn't the whole American constitution based on that?

Please tell me how detaining people without basic rights and treated as guilty until proven innocent is just.

You're forgetting that these hijackers worked in close-knit teams. If profiling could merely identify one man from each team then it has served its purpose.

I will say again. None of the hijackers fitted the profile. Being in close knit teams had nothing to do with it, and to be honest if they had gotten one they wouldn't of gotten them all (hence teams).

Because recent history has shown us that if evidence points to the possibility of terrorism, then 9.4 out of 10 times the police have it exactly right.

Please tell me where in recent history. I can certainly cite loads of cases in recent history which prove that profiling based on race, religion does not work (Try CAIN for some examples). You show me your proof I'll show you mine.

In other words, in almost every independent study into the matter, 94% of the people detained are either implicated, material witnesses or middlemen for a terrorist organization, or an organization which supports terror. Those again, seem to be odds worth counting on.

Again show me where you are getting these magical facts from. I would be intrested.

I said should be, not is barred.

And you were basing your whole argument on that and I doubt very much it's the sole factor for why organized crime is able to florish.

allowing a terror suspect to seek independent counsel is a security threat, and an undeniable one.

Again I will say. You are basing it on the fact that once a person is detained they are automatically a terrorist. If they are innocent why should they be denied basic rights?

You just seem to have done it for an entire nation. Hyperbole no doubt, but offensive to some I would imagine.

Well I can only speak for the people I saw in around Boston during the time I lived there (I was there during 9/11). The amount of flag waving and blind patroisim was sickening. The fact such laws like the USA PATRIOT act got passed just seems to back that up.

It's taken some time for people to wake up to what's going on. It didn't need a psychiatrist to see what was going on.

We just introduced legislation allowing the executive to detain under special circumstances, those suspected of terrorism.

Detain without rights or contact with the outside world. But they would only detain terrorists never innocent people right?

You also forgot about the other laws that were passed
- FBI can now break into your home or office and search it without giving you a warrant or without your knowledge.
- People suspected of terrorism are denied even the rights to view the evidence against them.
- Americans can even be held under the misuse of "Unlawful Combatant" law.
- The monitoring of internet access without a warrent.
- Roaming wiretaps with no timelimit on a tap placed on a public phone.
- All transactions over a certain amount (or over a certain amount of time) are reported to the FBI.
- Credit Card/Bank information can be obtained without a warrant.
- 22 govenment departments to be disbanded and made into 1 department (Who's head is contemplating putting the army on the streets).
- No rights to non-US citizens and immigrants.
- Laws removed which allow the president to veto the release of any information relating to him ever.

Note: Some of those laws while passed through the anti-terrorism bill, do not need to be related to terrorism.

It gives you the citizen a point of direct contact with law enforcement agents who are more able to deal with your problem

And how exactly is that any different then what is already in place (ie. call the cops, FBI?). Your right reporting crimes isn't spying. When you recruit workers to actively look for crimes within areas that the police couldn't go without a warrant, thats when it's spying.

"Better to err in good faith than to suffer recriminations of the damned"- Mahatma Gandhi

I don't think he did. Do you have date/time on that quote? Or a link.

Only quote I could find based on your text as a search is "Freedom is not worth having if it does not connote freedom to err. It passes my comprehension how human beings, be they ever so experienced and able, can delight in depriving other human beings of that precious right."

In case your wondering I did a search to see what context he was speaking in. He could of been talking about boiling an egg for all we know.

If we want our governments to prevent future events, we have to make sacrifices to help them do so.

You seem to like quotes. Here's one. "he who sacrifices freedom for security deserves neither" - Ben Franklin

pencil

Bob you are an Unlucky Octopus,

Firstly my apologies for not being able to reply properly to your post (I am up to my eyes in work today)

Bob you have some real funny ideas about what freedom, justice, due process, etc. mean. Especially in relation to what the US spouts on about.

I can imagine that there are millions of honest descent Americans (especially of middle Eastern decent) who would be shocked at your ideas on what you consider fair ground for suspicion (racial profiling). Sir I suggest to you that you would be alot happer with an blond haired blue eyed America.

I'd like to recommend this book to you, a fantastic read, which will open your eyes to what the 'war on terrorism' is all about.

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/158367070X/102-7466538-1134561

Regards.

edited: I'd be dangerous if I could spell

bonkey

Originally posted by Bob the Unlucky Octopus Illegally held? Not so- if they're being held under suspicion of being terrorists then that's perfectly legal.

OK - the "legal" part may hold true, but I would definitely side with the "unjust".

Take your crimelord example.

Arrest John Gotti on suspicion of being a crimelord. Detain him without allowing any information of his whereabouts or condition to be released. Prevent him from having his one phonecall, his lawyer, etc. etc. etc. and then try and justify this against his Miranda rights.

Now, replace "crimelord" with "terrorist", and John Gotti with John Doe. All of a sudden, no rights? All is good, because terrorists are the witches of the noughties and we should hunt them down?

As far as legal advice goes- just as a crime boss should be barred from independent legal advice, so should terrorists be. It defies reason for the conduit of "legal advice" to be used for conducting operations from behind bars, be you terrorist or crimelord.

Be you convicted terrorist or convicted crimelord, dont you mean?

Innocent till proven guilty and all of that?

This is the fundamental problem with the idea - and it is one which the Irish are well acquainted with from the good ol' days of internment in Britain.

The simple fact is that it is very easy for us to say that its okay that a few innocents suffer in order to protect the greater good. Easy to say until you're one of the few. And why not apply the same logic to all other forms of crime? Better a few innocents suffer than allowing the drug trade to thrive? And so on, and so on? Our modern legal systems evolved out of a belief that this was not acceptable. If we are now reverting to this approach, then surely the entire basis on which our respective legal systems are based is fundamentally flawed.

The governments want terrorism to be a special class of crime. Its classed as military when it suits, but not when it comes to honouring military conventions about prisoners rights. At other times, its criminal, but not when it comes to honouring the due process of a system which was designed to protect the innocent.

While I was on holidays, I overheard a coversation where an American was taking the staunch pro-American line of "we will not be cowed by terrorism, and so far we havent been".

I see it differently. I see America running scared in a manner it has never known before. It has been cowed by terrorism, but it just doesnt want to admit it.

Freedom - one of the cornerstones of the American "dream" is no longer sacrosanct. It has been bent out of all recogniseable shape by these kneejerk reactions to this new threat. America is faced with the stark realism that its very own ideals prevent it from fighting its newest threat, and has decided that the ideals can be sacrificed in order to survive.

One must ask, therefore, what exactly is being fought for?

jc

deco

surely only muzzies have to worry about this sort of thing.

You'd be a fool and a communist to think otherwise....:)

Bob the Unlucky Octopus

I'd like to start off by apologizing to Hobbes for reacting like I had a large pole up my a$s- had a bad day and flew off the handle after seeing a boards.ie card I laughed my head off at first seeing. Sense of humor was kind of strained at the time- but onwards to the mandatory long post:

Originally posted by bonkey

OK - the "legal" part may hold true, but I would definitely side with the "unjust".

So would I jc, in a perfect world. However, seeing as how neither of us is likely to be appointed to the bench anytime soon, the only practical authority on what is just or otherwise resides with those whose experience in the matters of legal precedence is unquestionable. In other words, while it might be easy to sit in front of one's computer and pontificate about the ethics of a utopian society, the fact is that every major western government has similar provisions in place and exercise them. Al-Moussawi was detained for 5 months in France without trial or counsel, when counsel was assigned it was done under surveillance, and extradition ultimately became a formality. No one batted an eyelid, or chanted liberte, fraternite, egalite at the Place de Citoyens. Why? Because people realize that as long as rigid executive controls are in place and there's a high standard of proof they're willing to accept this.

On that note jc- you do realize that in Switzerland- if the government deems that a public action of yours is seditious that they can detain you for up to 6 months without trial? A year if they believe terrorism or state-level crimes are involved. That isn't necessarily just- but it is deemed necessary by the legislature- and the judiciary has upheld it. In other words, what the US has done is effectively enact emergency measures along the lines of normal legislation in other countries. Emergency measures can be established via executive order for 90 days. Congress has extended the measures twice, but after the "dirty bomber" incident where State's evidence was insufficient to hold the suspect, never mind assemble a trial- my feeling is that these measures won't be in place for long. They may be unjust, but as long as they are deemed necessary, I won't oppose them- nor would most, the measures create the perception of security, something which I find important.

Take your crimelord example... Prevent him from having his one phonecall, his lawyer, etc. etc. etc. and then try and justify this against his Miranda rights.

Under section 58 of the GL legislative penal code(1987), they could have removed his right to independent counsel. In Gotti's case, what saved him wasn't Miranda vs. Florida...but the fact that the State governer was incriminated as well. You then had the comical signs of the vultures circling over the Governor's office, while he frantically tried to cut himself a deal with the DA's office. Assuming the prosecution in Gotti's case didn't have its integrity compromised, I have no doubt that Article 58 would have been sought by the police- it was an unusual set of circumstances. In any case, its enforcement is automatic after conviction- US enforcement services learned their lesson after Paul Castellano.

Now, replace "crimelord" with "terrorist", and John Gotti with John Doe. All of a sudden, no rights? All is good, because terrorists are the witches of the noughties and we should hunt them down?

Not at all. Their rights are simply being protected by the executive rather than by legal precedent. While many find this uncomfortable, when one considers the high standard of proof necessary and the rigid executive controls, I am inclined to think less abuse of the system is a small price to pay for a marginal decline in the rights of people charged with terrorism. People aren't detained indiscriminately, the police are required to placate a variety of strict proofs before even acceding to a charge sheet or a warrant.

Be you convicted terrorist or convicted crimelord, dont you mean?
Innocent till proven guilty and all of that?

A noble ideal, but in most terrorist cases, there is sufficient circumstantial evidence long before a formal charge needs to be drawn up. Rather than alert a terrorist organization via a mouthpiece, the internment allows a security window to be established around open public proceedings. Distasteful perhaps, but it is seldom exercised, or will be when the measures come forward before the House Justice subcommitee.

This is the fundamental problem with the idea - and it is one which the Irish are well acquainted with from the good ol' days of internment in Britain.

I'm not going to get into the politics of this, but here's the bottom line as far as I'm concerned. When it comes to terrorism, proceedings must be utterly secure, and executive evidence standards maintained high. Interest immunity loopholes are closed, and independent counsel with-held. Otherwise you send the message that terrorism is in fact profitable, and that the justice system dances to your tune given the circumstances. A crime which has the potential to cause mass panic, which is an attack upon not the innocents directly but upon the thinking of the government they elected- then the PTA came into play. There were abuses, two famous ones in fact, but overall, the increase in security was substantial, the risk to rights very low- considering how seldomly it was employed.

The simple fact is that it is very easy for us to say that its okay that a few innocents suffer in order to protect the greater good. Easy to say until you're one of the few.

When the very system which allows due process to procede comes under terrible attack, the response needs to be proportionate. After the emergency measures, one can be sure that security has improved. And suffer is rather a strong word for what is really only an inconvenience, and one which the US civil system will reward one richly for if pursued.

And why not apply the same logic to all other forms of crime?

Because due process needs to exist in the majority of cases. Terrorism is a special case, especially when the perps don't care about their own life. If you find me a drug-lord sucidally declared to his cause, I'd want that brought under Article 12(Prevention of Terrorism FEMA protocol) asap. Except that drug dealers aren't suicidal, not in the same way.

The governments want terrorism to be a special class of crime. Its classed as military when it suits, but not when it comes to honouring military conventions about prisoners rights.

The system can only ever be arbitrary. "Unlawful combatants" is as good a standard as any. In other words, it's fine to target military installations, but if you remove your uniform and deliberately target civilians, then hasta la vista. Terrorism is a special class of crime. It targets the psyche of a vast number of people for a political end. If we provide the oxygen of freedom and publicity to such ends, then the terrorists have achieved their goal. Mohammed Ata's goal wasn't to survive to see his leader's ends achieved, but to make a statement in death, one that would shake the world. He succeeds on the day that the people of the US allow the Constitution to become a suicide pact. The stakes have been raised, not to respond proportionately sends the message that terrorism pays. Due process where the executive has deemed evidence amounts to a formal charge- is imprisonment if the charge is terrorism.

I see it differently. I see America running scared in a manner it has never known before. It has been cowed by terrorism, but it just doesnt want to admit it.

I disagree- I think the US is cowed by the inability to enact policy that will decisively turn the tide in our favor. The founding fathers never envisaged a situation such as this, nor did any hostage resuce crisis expert. It's a whole new set of rules, a dramatic escalation. That our government reciprocates with emergency measures which are the rule of law in Europe isn't being cowed. It's positive action. A few overweight American tourists may be patriotic, but I doubt they understand the issues. Then again, I doubt Ata and his 18 compatriots understood the issues clearly. All we know for certain is that they went to their deaths for a reason. When that reason no longer becomes an option, he won't board that plane. This is the reasoning behind current emergency measures, and it satisfies citizens living on US soil- that counts. This debate is undoubtedly edifying, but to citizens who just want to feel safe, the measures are hardly extreme or unjust.

One must ask, therefore, what exactly is being fought for?

The very freedom which you claim is sacrificed. It sounds cliche, but freedom isn't something to be taken for granted, it's something worth fighting for. And in fighting it if emergency measures force the relinquishing of certain parts of said freedom, then it is a price worth paying. I still consider these emergency measures more free than European governments- who exercise statutory legislation in the manner that emergency measures normally are. That to me sounds more dangerous. Yes, the ideals can be shelved while you fight to preserve them. Not for too long, but even Libretarians realize that the preservation of rights means nothing if staturory crime on the level of 9/11 is the result. The courts will test the measures, the legislation will debate the measures in policy terms. Internet forums may be the battleground for the legal ethos- but that of course, is neither here nor there. At least if you live in a practical world.

Occy

Hobbes

I'd like to start off by apologizing to Hobbes for reacting like I had..

Don't worry, it takes a lot to annoy me and if you had I would of just called the TIPS hotline and reported a subversive.

Al-Moussawi was detained for 5 months in France without trial or counsel, when counsel was assigned it was done under surveillance, and extradition ultimately became a formality.

Intresting you mention France. Because another terrorist suspect (as claimed by the US) detained in France was offered the full rights of the judical system and extradition was denied for the US because it was said that he would not recieve a fair trial in the US and that the US did not give any real evidence of the persons guilt (and France is one of the few places that allows hearsay as legal evidence!).

On that note jc- you do realize that in Switzerland-

Just because another country does it, doesn't make it any more legal.

marginal decline in the rights of people charged with terrorism.

What about the people not charged?

People aren't detained indiscriminately, the police are required to placate a variety of strict proofs before even acceding to a charge sheet or a warrant.

Yes the Police are. Not in the case of people detained under your new laws. As I mentioned eariler the Taxi Driver in Boston who was later released, they had absolutly no evidence when they held him.

Likewise with the warrant. Police/FBI no longer need to go through the strict rules of getting a warrant (ref: USA PATRIOT act). In fact it's based on one judge and can be circumstancial. Plus they don't have to ever have served the warrant to you. There were strict reasons as to why the system was the way it was.

but in most terrorist cases, there is sufficient circumstantial evidence long before a formal charge needs to be drawn up.

Except now the US doesn't even have to bother with evidence. coupled with the sneak-and-peek warrants the cops can just break in and plant the evidence. Or if they are feeling bored that day just don't allow the suspect access to the evidence.

But then there has never been a case where people on the force have been corrupt. :rolleyes:

Rather than alert a terrorist organization via a mouthpiece

Let's not assume the bad guys are stupid. I'm pretty sure if one didn't make an arranged meeting at a set time the rest would disappear. Pulling them in on the QT won't help.

Otherwise you send the message that terrorism is in fact profitable,

No Bonkey is right. Taking England/NI as an example all instances of where the UK followed the same reasoning as the US all they managed to do was increase the recruitment lines for the paramilitary groups. I very much doubt any terrorist is worried about getting caught, especially those kind who are quite happy to kill themselves to make a point.

When the very system which allows due process to procede comes under terrible attack, the response needs to be proportionate. After the emergency measures, one can be sure that security has improved. And suffer is rather a strong word for what is really only an inconvenience, and one which the US civil system will reward one richly for if pursued.

Oh man, I so don't want to invoke Godwins law on this thread.

The system can only ever be arbitrary. "Unlawful combatants" is as good a standard as any. In other words, it's fine to target military installations, but if you remove your uniform and deliberately target civilians, then hasta la vista.

Except that Unlawful combatants relates to a war and war hasn't been declared in the US. Taking the dirty bomber as an example. There is still no real evidence that he was going to carry it through and it took a few weeks of detainment to pull that from him.

Terrorism is a special class of crime. It targets the psyche of a vast number of people for a political end.

And you have to stop and wonder about that. Notice how the "Terror" is being played out. Everything has to be grandiose for America. Truth is terrorism can happen in a number of ways which don't require any large scale plans like bio or nuclear attacks. In fact looking over the history of terrorism most seem to use the simple and easy methods possible. Yet nearly all the warnings are "Bio", "Nuclear", "Chemical". Why? Because most Americans are so desensitized they really couldn't give a toss unless it was something out of a Jerry Bruckheimer movie.

Btw, notice how the US is no longer going on about the Anthrax attacks after it found that the source was US based.

Which are the rule of law in Europe isn't being cowed

News to me it's rule of law in Europe. I haven't heard anything of people being dragged from their homes in secret to be questioned and detained until such time the government feels like it. I believe they do that in such places as Iraq though.

When that reason no longer becomes an option, he won't board that plane.

Your actually very correct. When that reason no longer becomes an option. However what you have put in place doesn't deal with the real reason behind the attacks. Just because what is put in place might make it harder, doesn't mean it will stop. When you understand the root causes of what made the person the terrorist to begin with and deal with that you will remove the threat of terrorism.

If someone tells kids to join his group of nutters because country X is evil. Some may believe him, most won't. If that country is indirectly responisble through action or inaction the deaths and subjugation of that kids family and friends you can bet he's going to strap on explosives.

The US has certainly pissed about with the Middle East enough to certainly create an environment that had only one logical conclusion.

and it satisfies citizens living on US soil- that counts.

Tell that to the Arab Americans. The internment of the Japanese Americans and removal of their rights during WWII was shown to be one of the greatest injustices of American History. Why now does the removal of Middle Eastern decent who are American make it better?

but freedom isn't something to be taken for granted,

That is true, shame the US is throwing it away.

I'm willing to bet that Bush will be able to take this as far as suspend elections in the US to maintain power.

While trying not to be fussy, I would like some kind of informational evidence to your quotes and figures about how what the US is doing is a good thing.

Bob the Unlucky Octopus

Originally posted by Hobbes


Intresting you mention France. Because another terrorist suspect (as claimed by the US) detained in France was offered the full rights of the judical system and extradition was denied for the US because it was said that he would not recieve a fair trial in the US and that the US did not give any real evidence of the persons guilt (and France is one of the few places that allows hearsay as legal evidence!).

If the standards for executive interrment(as it's called in France) were not met, then a judicial process follows. In al-Moussauwi's case the standard was met, and the executive authority justified.

Just because another country does it, doesn't make it any more legal.

I'll say it again: it's legal until it's either a) discontinued as a policy, b) repealed, or c) struck down in the courts. Until then, saying it's illegal does nothing except cloud the issue.

Yes the Police are. Not in the case of people detained under your new laws. As I mentioned eariler the Taxi Driver in Boston who was later released, they had absolutly no evidence when they held him.

They aren't laws, they are emergency measures enacted by the executive with a minimum of legislative support. They will go to a vote for a third time (the third 90-day period) in under a month. If a legislative assembly approves them again, then no one's in a position to substantively disagree with the policy. Certainly not those without a vote or a vested interest in the US save in muddying its name :P

Likewise with the warrant. Police/FBI no longer need to go through the strict rules of getting a warrant (ref: USA PATRIOT act). In fact it's based on one judge and can be circumstancial. Plus they don't have to ever have served the warrant to you. There were strict reasons as to why the system was the way it was.

The Patriot Act was in force long before 9/11- check the date on that statute. It's rarely if ever been used save to detain those who possibly pose a serious risk.

Except now the US doesn't even have to bother with evidence. coupled with the sneak-and-peek warrants the cops can just break in and plant the evidence. Or if they are feeling bored that day just don't allow the suspect access to the evidence.

What possible incentive could the police have for wanting to do that now? Let's forget the incredibly invasive role internal affairs plays at every major USPD for a moment and consider motive. It's a self-regulated executive measure- ergo, a misuse of the measure amounts to serious consequences for its members(police, FBI, you name it). Considerably greater consequences than would amount to a failing of due process, or so I'm assured by a friend of mine in the ACLU. As such, I find it hard to believe that evidence could be so readily planted. We're not talking about planting a few sachets of dope here- we're talking about a serious hard-core threat, documents possessed by a handful of federal agencies. Cops aren't given them, simply told what to look for.

But then there has never been a case where people on the force have been corrupt. :rolleyes:

Touche- but find me a case where said corruption has lead to unlawful detention via the USPA or the new measures. You won't, simply because force corruption is generally to do with drug offences, theft, or local crime units. Not vast terrorist organizations.

Let's not assume the bad guys are stupid. I'm pretty sure if one didn't make an arranged meeting at a set time the rest would disappear. Pulling them in on the QT won't help.

The issue isn't catching them, but preventing them from communicating with their bretheren via a mouth-piece. I stated that very clearly. You're not looking to bait the rest of them, but simply to prevent your suspect from coordinating additional activity with them. If they're forced to relocate, then at the very least you've disrupted operations and forced a change of venue. At the most, you might force them into error and effect a capture.

No Bonkey is right. Taking England/NI as an example all instances of where the UK followed the same reasoning as the US all they managed to do was increase the recruitment lines for the paramilitary groups. I very much doubt any terrorist is worried about getting caught, especially those kind who are quite happy to kill themselves to make a point.

If they are caught, then their mission has failed- whether or not they are prepared to kill themselves is irrelevant in the context of their capture at the planning stage. I don't support this philosophy in general, but when it becomes necessary, the executive is obliged to act in an appropriate fashion. The public think it's an appropriate policy, and that in the context of a democracy is what matters.

Except that Unlawful combatants relates to a war and war hasn't been declared in the US. Taking the dirty bomber as an example. There is still no real evidence that he was going to carry it through and it took a few weeks of detainment to pull that from him.

If I interviewed a captured Al-Qaeda operative and asked whether he was a combatant fighting in a war, I don't think he'd disagree with me. Objective definitions have no bearing on an issue when the actual participants of a conflict know what they face.

News to me it's rule of law in Europe. I haven't heard anything of people being dragged from their homes in secret to be questioned and detained until such time the government feels like it. I believe they do that in such places as Iraq though.

Not only does it happen, I've spoken to attorneys who have acted for the defense in such cases. Hell, my dad's done it in Germany 3 or 4 times- two of my closest friends have appeared in class-action suits in Berne regarding security detention. The reason it isn't as publicized is that the rule of law isn't a huge subject for discussion in Europe. Supreme court decisions in Germany for example, hardly matter to the average shmo. Whereas in the US, judicial process is far more publicized, and recent events have thrown the spotlight on legislation like the USPA, rarely if ever used.

Just because what is put in place might make it harder, doesn't mean it will stop. When you understand the root causes of what made the person the terrorist to begin with and deal with that you will remove the threat of terrorism.

I agree, but I would argue that it would first and foremost decrease the likelihood of an attack. That is important, public perceptions of safety count nearly as much as safety itself. Witness the incredibly ineffective US Patriot missile launches during the Gulf War. I doubt as many as 10% actually intercepted Scuds, but the perception in Israel was that they made a difference. Cynical, but effective in a public security context.

The US has certainly pissed about with the Middle East enough to certainly create an environment that had only one logical conclusion.

If you study the Middle East closely, so did the Soviet Union. I don't seem to recall a serious terrorist attack during the USSR's existence as a political power-group. It's unquestionable that it is due, in a large part, to the solid security measures brought into place when necessary.

Tell that to the Arab Americans. The internment of the Japanese Americans and removal of their rights during WWII was shown to be one of the greatest injustices of American History. Why now does the removal of Middle Eastern decent who are American make it better?

Possibly because a large number of Arab Americans are involved in the "charitable donation" of huge sums of monies to groups which fund terrorism? Funding for such groups doesn't come exclusively from a few wealthy sheikhs. In fact, said sheikhs almost certainly don't give a rat's a$s about the common Arab. If you donate sums of money to a group which funds terror, then the security measures are at the very least understandable, even if you cannot condone them as I do.

That is true, shame the US is throwing it away.

Again, in your opinion. We can play word-games all night, but as long as the American public is convinced the measures are necessary they will continue to remain in place.

I'm willing to bet that Bush will be able to take this as far as suspend elections in the US to maintain power.

I'll take that bet.

While trying not to be fussy, I would like some kind of informational evidence to your quotes and figures about how what the US is doing is a good thing.

The majority of my information is from anecdotal sources- my father being a judge, and my having grown up in a family of lawyers, many of whom practice civil liberties, international law, and public interest immunity law. That which doesn't mainly comes from PIAG analysis study-plans. The periodical isn't available on the internet, but a quick trip to the microfiche center in your public library should be satisfactory.

Just to reiterate- I do not support the principle behind the current policy, nor do I think it is right. I simply think that it is necessary at the very least to establish a modicum of calm and assurance in the electorate. Enough to stabilize opinions to the degree that trade, aid and political support policy can be altered, as it must be, to deprive terrorism of its reason to thrive. No one questions that this is the strategy to adopt- the people just aren't ready for it though.

Occy

Hobbes

I'm really not going to play merry-go-round on all that. What I will say though.

The Patriot Act was in force long before 9/11- check the date on that statute. It's rarely if ever been used save to detain those who possibly pose a serious risk.

No it hasn't. Please point out where I can see this date because I followed the bill as it was going it's round through the government a few months earlier. The only thing old about the bill is a lot of it has been tried to be put into law for years and has failed.

Well over a thousand people have been detained so far with the bill and god knows how many are being spied/sneek-and-peeked on.

They will go to a vote for a third time (the third 90-day period) in under a month.

It's been over three months since USA act has been passed into law, and some of the conditions of the bill have no sunset clause.

The majority of my information is from anecdotal sources

And magical pixies fly down and tell me. Look I could care less if the pope himself has a hotline to your house. The least you could do is back up your information with sources.

Let's take an example.

, 94% of the people detained are either implicated, material witnesses or middlemen for a terrorist organization, or an organization which supports terror. Those again, seem to be odds worth counting on.

Where the heck did you pull that magical figure from? You have yet to say and most statisticians will tell you that %'s as proof is flawed.

Come on, tell me where you got that figure from.

Possibly because a large number of Arab Americans are involved in the "charitable donation" of huge sums of monies to groups which fund terrorism?

Sorry but that is a crock of ****. Unless you have actual proof of this your just being racist.

JustHalf

I like to call things illegal.

Bob the Unlucky Octopus

Originally posted by Hobbes
I'm really not going to play merry-go-round on all that. What I will say though.

Gracious of you- that being the case I'll say my piece and be on my way. I have no further interest beyond this post in engaging in debate where proponents of an opposing view refuse to study my position. It's counterproductive and deleterious to my vacation :P

No it hasn't. Please point out where I can see this date because I followed the bill as it was going it's round through the government a few months earlier. The only thing old about the bill is a lot of it has been tried to be put into law for years and has failed.

That is the point I was making- the fact that Bush signed it on October 26 doesn't make it a new law/bill- it simply means that is the date where it was enacted as an official emergency measure. Whoop-de-doo.

Well over a thousand people have been detained so far with the bill and god knows how many are being spied/sneek-and-peeked on.

If you're going to crucify a position based on evidence, then saying "god knows who many people..." doesn't sound so good does it? Speculation gets us nowhere- and I still fail to see what is wrong with detaining people suspected of a serious crime. Civil liberties pontification is all very well and good, but I haven't exactly heard a hatful of ideas from anyone on this board as to a viable alternative policy. That's probably because in every single country who faced similar troubles, exactly the same course has been followed. If there is no popular alternative the executive branch of government has no choice but to pick up the ball and run with it.

It's been over three months since USA act has been passed into law, and some of the conditions of the bill have no sunset clause.

USA act? Never heard of it- there's the Patriot Bill, enacted with a minimum of Congressional support, and such emergency executive actions require ratification every 90 days. Think back to Clinton's involvement in Haiti- independent action of that nature with a minimum of legislative support will come up for review at some stage. Hence my lack of concern. I don't like the idea of pre-trial detention as it's currently being carried out, but I'll accept it is necessary until the executive decides that the threat has been somewhat reduced, and the internal analysts placated.

And magical pixies fly down and tell me. Look I could care less if the pope himself has a hotline to your house. The least you could do is back up your information with sources.

Pixies eh? Probably more reliable than what John Paul would say. Well, two can play at being brutally frank Hobbes:
a) Your opinion of how the US government conducts its affairs doesn't interest me one bit beyond a broad platonic level. You don't vote, you don't pay federal tax and you don't consider yourself American. This coupled with an obsessive need to constantly paint another nation in a bad light makes me think twice when I read critical arguments of yours, however legitimate.

b) The government is carrying out the wishes of its citizens- isn't that the job of an elected government? Dissent is all well and good, but if the majority believe in the effectiveness of a policy, then it's not your place to disagree with them. Unless of course, you believe you should be in the position to issue the very manner of executive mandate you've just denounced.

Let's take an example.

Where the heck did you pull that magical figure from? You have yet to say and most statisticians will tell you that %'s as proof is flawed.

The PIAG's annual domestic affairs report 2001-2. Available in every Congressional library. Though in my case I wrote to my senator's office. How on earth is a percentage figure flawed by the way? I did 2 units of statistics at med school, and we used percentages, percentiles, percentage growth figures all in good faith. What is a chi squared test if not an internal comparison of percentages? We don't have to rely on statistics though- a bit of common sense will see us through- I still haven't seen one meaningful statistic from you. Don't think that by attempting to degrade my statistics you can get away with none of your own.

Come on, tell me where you got that figure from.

I did, now I want to know how on earth you repeatedly arrive at the conclusion that my government's actions are in any way illegal. Give me a link to a reputable legal source. Or did you come up with that little gem of administrative law all by yourself?

Sorry but that is a crock of ****. Unless you have actual proof of this your just being racist.

Really now? I don't see that I need proof of what amounts to common sense. It's not a huuuge leap of faith to contend that in its heydey, the IRA was heavily funded by private citizens in the US- current thinking is similarly indicated regarding Al Qaeda and their sources of funding world-wide.

Terrorist groups are funded- I think we can agree on that. They are largely funded by private citizen donations- I refer to the CBI's preliminary findings report re: Srinagar 1999, where Indian authorities traced terrorist funds to 9 major charities, all of which support jihad world-wide. The US government added them to the list of banned organizations. This is one main purpose of emergency legislation currently- to isolate those who have made donations to these charity groups and attempt to investigate primary source funding- ie, where does the money go after it reaches said charity groups.

Furthermore- racism has nothing to do with this. Islamic Jihad, Mujahid Waqil & friends aren't funded by a diverse number of faiths. I know of no Hindus, Christians or Ba'hais who fund Al-Qaeda. But I have met several private citizens in Pakistan who freely admit to doing so, confident that their government will not dare contradict a large section of public opinion openly. Muslims who share their ideals and the goals of their jihad will be the most substantial contributors- it's common sense and indicated in every strategic report published by an independent think-tank. It doesn't take a rocket-scientist to put that one together, nor a list of hugely reputable sources. If that sort of funding isn't criminal I surely don't know what is. You can call it freedom fighting, freedom struggle, fight for self-determination, I don't give a sh1t. If that goal is sought through violent cowardly means then it is terrorist in nature and must be fought.

You may disagree with what the US government is up to- which is your right. But don't expect me to care- you're not American, you don't have US interests at heart, and you don't have a say in the policy of another country. Just as I may disagree with European statutory legislation amounting to pre-trial detention as and when it suits the executive, but I couldn't care less even though I currently live in Europe- London to be exact. I'm not likely to become a terrorist, nor will I ever support suspicious groups or take up arms against the state. I haven't been stopped by the police or the federal administration in Britain despite the fact that I might resemble a profile that they use. Why? Because there are strict executive controls regarding the use of PTA detention- I fail to see why I have to keep repeating this to you. It's not particularly hard to understand...the executive branch of government will hold its own responsible for the actions taken under emergency measures. The courts will test the appropriateness of this in due course, criticism from you changes nothing except our blood pressure.

You and I both agree that US involvement in regime change is wrong, it amounts to outside opinion and inteference. I just don't see how your objection to how another country makes decisions is any different to that. Except our government is capable of influencing policy change and you aren't. So why care so much? I'm a citizen, there are over 200 million other citizens, most of whom take the view that a small sacrifice of freedom is necessary to preserve it. Are you saying that because we're indifferent, we need foreigners to dazzle us with the light of reason? Thanks, but no thanks- when the issue needs to be decided, it will be- be it the courts, legislature or the executive acting on public opinion, not on an internet board.

Occy

Biffa Bacon

Hobbes, you're owned, face it.

pencil

Bob your on holidays, luck sod.

Speculation gets us nowhere- and I still fail to see what is wrong with detaining people suspected of a serious crime.

(Bob forgets to mention that in means without trial)

Everyone just give up, Bob obviously has no respect for the individual's rights within the almighty system. A lot of the mistakes of history centre around the lost of the individuals rights, but Bob just don't see the parallels.

Civil liberties pontification is all very well and good, but I haven't exactly heard a hatful of ideas from anyone on this board as to a viable alternative policy.

(Not short term I know) But if The states chilled on expanding the Empire - at the expense of half the worlds population, well then maybe Americans could live in a non-police state.

a) Your opinion of how the US government conducts its affairs doesn't interest me one bit beyond a broad platonic level. You don't vote, you don't pay federal tax and you don't consider yourself American. This coupled with an obsessive need to constantly paint another nation in a bad light makes me think twice when I read critical arguments of yours, however legitimate.

Typical of an American defending the actions of his government.
Bob, we have a right to comment & be concerned, America isn't a closed society. Where America goes today, they will eventually try to push the rest of the world to follow tomorrow, especially in developing countries through the World Bank & the IMF.

I don't personally have an obsessive need to paint America in a bad light, I spend a summer there & loved it, the people were great etc, etc.. (I can go on at length)

America does well enough on it's own damaging it's image (whatever Hobbes said isn't going to damage it), when it stops acting like a irresponsible bully you'll find people once again concentrating on it's good side.

The government is carrying out the wishes of its citizens- isn't that the job of an elected government?

Oh ****, that's a completely different argument. Come on you know that the US government is chosen by big business & not by it's citizens (this applies to a lot others also, I know).

I did, now I want to know how on earth you repeatedly arrive at the conclusion that my government's actions are in any way illegal. Give me a link to a reputable legal source. Or did you come up with that little gem of administrative law all by yourself?

Depending on who's authority you recognise - the UN would certainly think it illegal.

on the whole

Possibly because a large number of Arab Americans are involved in the "charitable donation" of huge sums of monies to groups which fund terrorism?

thing.

My line on this would go something like: No really conclusive proof of anything since 9/11 has been offered to the world.
And it seems you don't have a problem with this

Really now? I don't see that I need proof of what amounts to common sense.

I hope in the future none of your prodigy are every locked up based on a suspicion, if they are, you will have to seriously question your views.

JustHalf

Speculation gets us nowhere- and I still fail to see what is wrong with detaining people suspected of a serious crime.

(Bob forgets to mention that in means without trial)

I hear that when you're arrested, it's without trial.

Hobbes

Originally posted by Bob the Unlucky Octopus
where proponents of an opposing view refuse to study my position

No I study it, just I know there are some points that some people are never going to agree on so there is no point going around and around.

and I still fail to see what is wrong with detaining people suspected of a serious crime.

There is nothing wrong. The problem occurs when you have no evidence for the detention beyond the person is middle eastern decent, so they must be a terrorist.

That's probably because in every single country who faced similar troubles, exactly the same course has been followed.

Sure in England back in the 70's. It really helped. :rolleyes:

I do have suggestions but I'll wait until I have more time to write them.

USA act? Never heard of it- there's the Patriot Bill, enacted with a minimum of Congressional support,

Same bill different name. But you would know that if you actually read the bill.

The bill was shot through congress, during a time when people would be obviously distracted by what was going on. At least in England one of Tonys spindoctors got fired for suggesting the exact same tactic.

and such emergency executive actions require ratification every 90 days.

Might want to go read the bill a bit more so. AFAIK it's not an executive action and some of the items have no sunset clause. Orginally all of them had none, but then they changed bits.

Your correct though that all portions of the bill have been tried to be passed into law for years now. More information here

You don't vote, you don't pay federal tax and you don't consider yourself American.

Well two out of three ain't bad. I do actually pay federal taxes and have paid state taxes as well.

This coupled with an obsessive need to constantly paint another nation in a bad light makes me think twice when I read critical arguments of yours, however legitimate.

I'm an equal oppurtinity moaner. TBH it's that sort of crap that went on shortly after 9/11. If you questioned anything what the government was doing you were "UnAmerican" or labelled subversive. Freedom of Speech? Phht.

[quoteThe government is carrying out the wishes of its citizens- isn't that the job of an elected government?[/quote]

The majority of Americans didn't even know about the Bill or what was in it and some couldn't give a toss because it only denied rights to non-Americans. If the bill had tried to be pushed through say oh now, it wouldn't be passed. Look at TIPS. It just got toasted in Congress.

The PIAG's annual domestic affairs report 2001-2. Available in every Congressional library.

Yes, I can tell people to "go to a library".

What I was looking for the exact location in the report that you are quoting from so I wouldn't have to bother go reading the whole thing or groups or reports. Is that much too ask?

I mean you have obviously read it, seeing as you are quoting it and I want to see on what assumption the person who made the figures seems to think that what is put in place is a good thing.

Percentages are flawed without actual data. What figure+conditions they are basing their percentages on?

I wonder because there are reams of times in modern history where it has proven it does not work.

I did, now I want to know how on earth you repeatedly arrive at the conclusion that my government's actions are in any way illegal.

Thought I already answered that as it being "Unjust".

Really now? I don't see that I need proof of what amounts to common sense. It's not a huuuge leap of faith to contend that in its heydey, the IRA was heavily funded by private citizens in the US-

So by that defination every Irish American funded the IRA? Is that what you are saying. So your saying every Irish American believes in terrorism?

Quite a stretch. But that's what your saying about people of Middle Eastern decent?

you don't have US interests at heart, and you don't have a say in the policy of another country.

US Intrests at heart? When the US actions is able completely **** the world over then go on as if it's everyone elses fault and starts instigating laws which you would expect of 1940's Germany and has the potencial to screw the world that's when I get annoyed.

I haven't been stopped by the police or the federal administration in Britain despite the fact that I might resemble a profile that they use. Why? Because there are strict executive controls regarding the use of PTA detention- I fail to see why I have to keep repeating this to you.

Because your basing it on your experience. Just because you have never been detained you believe that innocent people can never be detained or treated as terrorists, when it's so far from the truth.

It's not particularly hard to understand...the executive branch of government will hold its own responsible for the actions taken under emergency measures.

Except with the new laws passed that is no longer the case. I believe Ashcroft even tested this a few months back by denying to release any information to the senate about what they were up to.

I'm a citizen, there are over 200 million other citizens, most of whom take the view that a small sacrifice of freedom is necessary to preserve it.

I'm pretty sure all the people it relates too aren't too happy. But hey your not one of them, so why should you worry.

bonkey

Originally posted by Bob the Unlucky Octopus On that note jc- you do realize that in Switzerland- if the government deems that a public action of yours is seditious that they can detain you for up to 6 months without trial? A year if they believe terrorism or state-level crimes are involved. T [/b]

Yes, but the law in Switzerland requires that I have performed a public act. This is significantly different to the new laws in the US where they can sneak a peek at your private life.

That said, I still wouldnt agree with the law as it stands. Again, making the distinction, I feel it is unjust as opposed to illegal (after all, how can a law be illegal).

However, I know of no nation where internment has been imposed because of specific situations where disastrous acts of injustice have not occurred as a result of abuse of the system, or the want to see the law done.

House arrest of "dissidents" is common practice in many oppressive regimes. The lack of need to go to trial, or the ability to re-detain someone immediately after their release when there are time-limits on detentions - in effect allows permanent imprisonment with no trial ever being held.

We should also remember that even in more "respected" legal establishments, gross injustices have been carried out. Take cases such as the Guildford 4. Perhaps they really were guilty, but the simple fact is that there was no evidence available to prove it. The police believed they were guilty, or simply needed justice to be seen to be done, and as a result, gross abuses of the judicial system were enacted, which resulted in the unjust imprisonment of innocent people for quite a long time.

While many find this uncomfortable, when one considers the high standard of proof necessary and the rigid executive controls,

High standard of proof necessary? If thats the case, why not simply hold the trial? If you require high standards of proof to detain someone, then give them their day in court. If you cant make it stand up in court, then the height of the standards must immediately be questioned.

People aren't detained indiscriminately

From what I understand, and I may be wrong, there is no way of believing this other than trusting in those carrying out the detentions when they say so. Its all behind closed doors. Again - internment in Britain as an example.

A noble ideal, but in most terrorist cases, there is sufficient circumstantial evidence long before a formal charge needs to be drawn up.

Fair enough. So why the ability to detain without trial, or legal counsel? Surely because circumstantial evidence has never been considered enough to prove guilt? Given that the seriousness of the crimes is potentially so great, surely the requirements for proof should be tigher...not looser.

Also, what about the cases where it isnt there? Again - it seems like youre saying "tough luck to the few innocents who fall into this gap".

Again - bear in mind that Ireland and England are a very good test-case to look at. We have been dealing with terrorism for years, and while I would never say it has been gotten right, we can see what was definitely wrong.

I can think of very few parties who, in retrospect, would claim that internment was a good, well-effected policy, and that the biggest flaw in it was its lack of accountability or transparency, which was required due to the need for security. In otherwords, the conditions which were required for it to work were the same conditions which allowed it to be corrupted so badly.

To date, I see nothing new in the US approach which will avoid that, unless we simply wish to believe that the British legal systems are corrupt where the US ones arent.

Terrorism is a special case, especially when the perps don't care about their own life.

There is no evidence to show that terrorists do not care about their own life. Those who commit atrocities which involve their own suicide are giving their life for a cause. By and large, they are a tiny minority - only hours after the Sep11 plane-crashes, analysts were saying that there was only a handful of organisations in the world who they were aware of who had access to such a large group of dedicated men willing to die in the execution of a plan. Large? That was a large group? Come on. There have been thousands detained between the US, Afghanistan and other locations. We're taling a tiny percentage, if even that.

Given your propensity to defend the legislation because it is applicable to "the vast majority of cases", I think it is fair to say that the vast majority of terrorists do care about their lives. They may be willing to die in the execution of a mission, but isnt that also expected of every single member of the US armed forces? Its no different, at least, not from the mind-set of who you're dealing with and their respect for their own life.

The founding fathers never envisaged a situation such as this, nor did any hostage resuce crisis expert.

They must have all been asleep then. At least the crisis experts. America slept soundly in the belief that any attack would never happen on its homeland. Sure, the Cole might get attacked, some embassies attacked, but when you're at home you're safe.

I mean - come on - the WTC was attacked (truck bomb?) a few years ago. Are you telling me that since that time, America did not consider that other attacks of equal or greater impact could occur on its home soil? Of course it did.

Tom Clancy even used the commercial aricraft ploy in one of his books a few years ago, and was surprised to learn that there was no contingency plan for dealing with such an attack. He was informed at the time that they had never considered such an attack, but would obviously do so immediately. THis was before his book was written - while he was playing with the idea. Which means that there exists absolutely no excuse for a lack of foresight in this particular case. (This, by the way, I learned from an interview CNN had with Clancy on either Sep 11 or 12).

Perhaps they decided the possibility was too remote and not worth the effort (read "cost to industry") to put the measures in place to help prevent it. Who knows, but they sure as hell consider these type of things.

However, the underlying point is that ultimately, there does not seem to be any successful method for stopping terrorism. This is a scary, scary reality. Sure, we can mitigate the effects somewhat, but usually at the expense of our own ideals. In this respect, terrorism always achieves its goals - our lives are forced to change because of our reactions to terrorist attacks.

It's a whole new set of rules, a dramatic escalation.

No. It isnt.

Again, I refer to the previous attack on the WTC. Although unsuccessful, it targeted pretty much the exact same populace, and IIRC occurred at a time of day when the building was even more populated.

The escalation is only because the second WTC attack succeeded.

Terrorism is nothing new, and reactions to terrorism are nothing new. The US is following in the exact same footsteps that any nation I can think of who was faced with terrorism also took. They all justified it using some form of the words you use here, and none of them acquitted themselves well. Perhaps you have more faith in the US to "carry the can" here, but its a faith we wouldnt share.

To me, it looks like the US isnt learning from the mistakes of others....but I guess every nation is typically guilty of that because they all believe in their own ability to get it right.

This debate is undoubtedly edifying, but to citizens who just want to feel safe, the measures are hardly extreme or unjust.

Heh - safety is being seen to be put in place, rather than necessarily being put in place? Sure, it will keep the populace happy, but that doesnt mean its necessarily the right way to go about it. And if its only the perception/feeling of security, rather than security itself, Id rather have it with no loss of liberty/freedom.

Yes, the ideals can be shelved while you fight to preserve them. Not for too long, but even Libretarians realize that the preservation of rights means nothing if staturory crime on the level of 9/11 is the result.

There is no proof that it is the result. That just supposition. Yes, more intelligence is needed. Yes, personal freedoms may have to be sacrificed. I accept all of this. What I disagree with is the particular freedoms and rights which are being shelved.

As was pointed out (by Hobbes), the same logic could have been used to explain the imprisonment of American Japanese in the US during WW2 - the ideals and freedoms of the nation were "upheld" by suppressing those of the few who were deemed to be the threat.

The same logic could have been used to justify the imprisonment of the Guildford 4, and the detention of unknown numbers of others in Britain during its day.

Again - its all very well to shelve ideals, and is indeed sometimes necessary, but the simple truth is that it is only those unjustly affected by it who will ever really have a problem with it....and as long as that is a minority the public will approve.

Ironically, as with so many parts of history, it is impossible to show if there is a better solution. We cannot say that if the US hadnt imprisoned its Japenese in WW2 that they would not (in part) have acted against the US, nor what that would have resulted in.

What we can say is that history shows (to me, at least) that internment is a poor solution. My conclusion from this is that we should be actively seeking alternatives, rather than embracing this as a necessary evil.

jc

Bob the Unlucky Octopus

Originally posted by bonkey


Yes, but the law in Switzerland requires that I have performed a public act. This is significantly different to the new laws in the US where they can sneak a peek at your private life.

There's a common misunderstanding at work here- the sneak-peak warrants were in place far earlier than the US Patriot Act- I was in school when it happened.
From the Pittsburgh Tribune-Review, 3/10/02:

These so-called "sneak-and-peak" search warrants have existed since the 1980s. They were created during the War on Drugs and have been used sparingly, said Mark Hutchins, senior deputy district attorney for Alameda County, California, and an expert on search warrants.

They are being given publicity now because ACLU radicals in the US smell blood and are ready to pounce on the administration with every card in their hand. If an expert on such search warrants believes they have been used sparingly, then why would the ACLU in particular be bringing the issue to prominence now? It's because they have a vested interest in doing so, their views are coming to prominence now more than ever before because of this PR stunt. The government is certainly selling itself to the people (TIPS, USPA, executive orders)- and so is the ACLU. The important difference here is that the government was elected, ACLU radicals have not been.

That said, I still wouldnt agree with the law as it stands. Again, making the distinction, I feel it is unjust as opposed to illegal (after all, how can a law be illegal).

There I would agree with you- there is a marked difference between emergency legislation, and statutory legislation. The US Patriot Act is emergency legislation in that it affects 15 other statutes- it doesn't amount to a recognized statute in itself. In Europe on the other hand, internment isn't an emergency clause, but a seperate statute detailing executive powers and circumstances for extra-Constitutional breach. That's some pretty scary stuff- there's a reason people are scared of JM LePen and Jorg Haider- there are executive measures in place which could be horribly abused by such leaders.

On the point of it being an unjust law, that is an issue to be decided by the courts, ultimately the Supreme Court. The current court is certainly not pro-executive in any way, so one can be assured that when a test case comes before them they will consider it on the facts- not in the national interest. Justice Scalia in particular, an expert on civil liberties and very independent in his views, will certainly be in the make-up of such a tribunal, and be very influential in terms of its verdict. Therein lies the answer to our dispute jc- I think the emergency measures are temporary and will on balance prove to be just, you and Hobbes are more skeptical- the Supreme court's decision is what counts.

We should also remember that even in more "respected" legal establishments, gross injustices have been carried out.

I dispute the assertion that the UK's legal establishment is more respected. They have no written constitution, no penal code, and most importantly, no provision whatsoever in law that restricts police powers. If there is no preceding case, the police's actions are not judged by the facts, but by circumstance. Thus, abuses like the Guildford 4 are likely going on all the time in the UK- that case was brought to prominence likely via the terrorist scare frenzy sweeping the UK at the time.

High standard of proof necessary? If thats the case, why not simply hold the trial? If you require high standards of proof to detain someone, then give them their day in court. If you cant make it stand up in court, then the height of the standards must immediately be questioned.

Not necessarily the case jc- the rules of evidence in the United States are far, far more prohibitive than anywhere else in the Western world. A simple example is the rotten fruit, rotten tree principle of evidence. In other words, all the defendent needs to do is to file for change of venue- doing it in such a way that he appears before a judge likely to be sympathetic to pro-Constitutional acquittal. Then he instructs his lawyer to file a motion to dismiss the case against him based on the idea that the manner in which evidence was acquired is unConstitutional or unlawful.

That line of argument doesn't wash in Europe, because the rotten fruit principle isn't applied in law there. If the police in the UK for example, obtain evidence in an unlawful fashion then it is admissable, and can be used against you. Courts in Europe generally only care about how applicable the evidence is to the facts of the case, not how it was obtained. For example, before 1973, it was lawful for police in the UK to beat a confession out of a suspect, keep them up for 48 hours straight questioning them and pressuring them to sign documentation.

From what I understand, and I may be wrong, there is no way of believing this other than trusting in those carrying out the detentions when they say so. Its all behind closed doors. Again - internment in Britain as an example.

It's not blind faith- records are required to be kept and must be produced in a court of law. Public interests immunity goes out the window in criminal cases in the United States, again something that isn't true in Europe. In the UK, France, Germany etc- the government has every right to withold documents from the plaintiff if they believe that it is "not in the public interest" In the US, the most important check/balance independent of public opinion is the courts. The legislature and the executive are both controlled by public opinion- civil adiministration is also an important check on these powers. In this particular case, Internal Affairs at every police department in the country is a civil authority not an executive one- and as such will be an independent body of opinion on each internment case. It's not as stark as civil liberties activists would have us make out- an increase in powers to be sure, but one that will inevitably ensure greater security.

Fair enough. So why the ability to detain without trial, or legal counsel? Surely because circumstantial evidence has never been considered enough to prove guilt? Given that the seriousness of the crimes is potentially so great, surely the requirements for proof should be tigher...not looser.

Who ever said that circumstantial evidence was never enough to prove guilt? That's totally incorrect, there are a plethora of cases in domestic and international law to the contrary. The Lockerbie bombers are currently being prosecuted on circumstantial evidence alone- any material evidence presented in that case is incidental to the facts, not substantial to them. The crime is a serious one, and the standard of proof must be high, but a detention window before the trial is important not only for security reasons, but so that the trial when it occurs will be in evidence with fairness and a well-sequestered jury. Not the show-trials that were the habit of the English High Court during the 1970s and 1980s.

Also, what about the cases where it isnt there? Again - it seems like youre saying "tough luck to the few innocents who fall into this gap".

If proof isn't there, then there is no executive mandate to detain people! This is what people fail to grasp- just because there aren't (as yet) legislative or statutory control on these powers (because they are emergency in nature) doesn't mean that there are no controls at all. Strict executive and civil controls (UCoC, Internal Affairs, State government/governer) are in place, none of which can be set aside by the executive government. Why? Because they are either independent of government (Internal Affairs) or they are subject to state government power not federal. Any attempt by George W. to impose executive mandates on state governments has been met by state resistance- and rightly so, federalism isn't popular anywhere in the US outside of DC.

As for the "few innocents who fall through the gap"- I refer to Lawrence H. Tribe, Emeritus Law Professor of Harvard, and a modern genius in US Constitutional Law who said in the American Constitutional Law Review 10/11/01: "It is all very well to suggest that we would rather 100 guilty defendants were set free than see one innocent defendent be jailed. We must however re-evaluate this arithmetic if a single one of the 100 freed is deemed capable of destroying the rest of Manhattan." In other words- given crimes of vast magnitude, security should increase by a comparable order of magnitude- seems fair enough.

Continued in next post

Bob the Unlucky Octopus

Again - bear in mind that Ireland and England are a very good test-case to look at. We have been dealing with terrorism for years, and while I would never say it has been gotten right, we can see what was definitely wrong.

Given that the rules of evidence in the UK are among the worst in Europe (the whole world if you remember they have no written Constitution)- the example is poor as I have stated.

To date, I see nothing new in the US approach which will avoid that, unless we simply wish to believe that the British legal systems are corrupt where the US ones arent.

The British system isn't corrupt, just flawed in the manner in which evidence is allowed to be presented.

There is no evidence to show that terrorists do not care about their own life.

Just the smoking ruins of two buildings and a few thousand innocents' lives. That's good enough evidence for me.

Given your propensity to defend the legislation because it is applicable to "the vast majority of cases", I think it is fair to say that the vast majority of terrorists do care about their lives.

I would argue that those who aid via funding, logistics or political means is no better than a terrorist- whether or not that terrorist is willing to die for a mission. Given the dangers bound up in investigating this, one must prepare for the worst, even if it involves treating a terrorist and his supporters on an equal level.

Perhaps they decided the possibility was too remote and not worth the effort (read "cost to industry") to put the measures in place to help prevent it. Who knows, but they sure as hell consider these type of things.

Cost to industry read "cost to civil liberties". Without something as stark and horrifying a 9/11, there is no way on Earth any administration would have Congressional support to put in place emergency measures even resembling what is now required.

However, the underlying point is that ultimately, there does not seem to be any successful method for stopping terrorism.

As optimistic as it sounds: That remains to be seen.

No. It isnt.

I can't think of any other buildings that were the target of airplane bombs successfully and simultaneously- that being the case, we must accept that it is a serious escalation. Just because there have been previous attacks on the WTC doesn't mean that these attacks are unable to increase in scale.

To me, it looks like the US isnt learning from the mistakes of others....but I guess every nation is typically guilty of that because they all believe in their own ability to get it right.

I don't disagree with you, witness Hitler falling into the same traps as Napoleon re: seperation of state powers, invasion of Russia in winter, republic-controlled economy, and so on. People living outside the US need to realize how difficult it is for a politician to act any differently given the current state of public opinion. It is unbelievably easy to sit in front of a computer in a different country as we are all doing, and denigrate the intelligence/wisdom of this public opinion. We might be right to do so, after all- when something like this happens, public opinion anywhere is unlikely to be objective, intelligent or wise.

I still feel that people are over-reacting to specific emergency measure, especially given that such measures have more solid statutory form in other Western democracies. Why is it so hard to believe that any democracy on the planet has measures in place to ensure its survival by any means necessary if required? That is undoubtedly the case, at least for the moment- after we push the emergency measures away, either into statutes or the trash-can, things will change.

Heh - safety is being seen to be put in place, rather than necessarily being put in place?

Both will occur- they are equally important in practise, the former is certainly more important to executive politicians. Which is why the legislature, and in this example the judiciary, exist to keep that tendency in check.

There is no proof that it is the result. That just supposition. Yes, more intelligence is needed. Yes, personal freedoms may have to be sacrificed. I accept all of this. What I disagree with is the particular freedoms and rights which are being shelved.

So do many US citizens- but whether they agree with them or not as general principle- the fact that they are at the moment, merely emergency measures in loosely coded legislation- means that we're not bothered as much. We're willing to tolerate them as necessary until either Congress or the courts take issue with it- neither of which is far away, let's be honest.

Ironically, as with so many parts of history, it is impossible to show if there is a better solution. We cannot say that if the US hadnt imprisoned its Japenese in WW2 that they would not (in part) have acted against the US, nor what that would have resulted in.

That is precisely the dilemna any government faces after something this big. If the government takes no action or what can be called too little action by a majority of people, then that government hasn't a future. That is the underlying problem with democratic government, if your mandate derives from the masses, you have to at least occasionally, listen to them. Witness how fast Jimmy Carter's government was ditched after four unsuccessful attempts to negotiate hostage release from the embassy in Tehran. Now I'm as much a fan of negotiation as anyone, and I applaud a tolerant line- but when terrorists refuse successive settlements 4 times in a row, you enter the realm of appeasement. The SAS were called in, released the hostages- some of whom lost their lives in the rescue. But the British were hailed as heroes by the American people who branded Carter as a spineless coward. Governments need to take decisive action- if another attack were to take place despite this action, then it can be legitimately criticized as ineffective. Until then, the government is as much acting to preserve its own existence, as the existence of its citizens. That problem faces all democracies, particularly those with their backs to a wall.

My conclusion from this is that we should be actively seeking alternatives, rather than embracing this as a necessary evil.
jc

After 10 months of political wrangling, debate and controversy, I haven't heard any workable alternatives from anyone. Even the ACLU state categorically that "something needs to be done about this infringement of rights while preserving national security interests" (LA-T, 3/28/02). Whoa! Brilliant deduction there Einstein. Looks like they truly have a team working around the clock on that one :rolleyes:

I agree that an alternative needs to be sought- in fact I am sure it is being sought. It needs to be politically acceptable, practically acceptable, and implementable by the executive. The current model fits the criteria as well as any- the courts and legislature control the fate of the rest. Whether these emergency measures become statute or garbage, no one can say that decisive action was not taken, or that said action has taken place improperly yet. Until the legislature or judiciary determine that it is indeed improper- we put our faith in the best plan available.

Occy

Hobbes

Here Occy, I'm looking through the library of congress http://www.loc.gov/ but I can't find that report you say exists. Can you prehaps give us some more details as to where it is (seeing as your not going to quote the information from it).

I did find this though -> http://www.loc.gov/rr/frd/terrorism.htm

Still looking for the information though.

... Reading through this site now -> http://jurist.law.pitt.edu/terrorism/terrorism3b.htm

Although most of the links don't seem to work the one on the USA PATRIOT act is intresting. -> http://jurist.law.pitt.edu/forum/forumnew40.htm

Bob the Unlucky Octopus

The report itself is titled the Policing Inquiry Amalgamation Group annual report- it isn't available online as far as I know- or if it is, it's probably buried at one of the millions of broken links peppering the LoC's site. I was informed of its existence by a friend studying Pol Sci at Georgetown. I wrote to my senator's office to procure a copy, which was easy at the time as a Washington State think tank published the report. The report's conclusions were disturbing, but not their statistics as I remember. The actual report is in a filing cabinet back in London (I'm on vacation atm)- I'll drop you the paragraph quotation when I get back. Recalling numerical information in such a fashion without the original documentation in front of you is unwise, and for that I apologize. I still believe that executive control is far more careful and effective than people believe, or think possible- we'll find out for sure when Justices Rhenquist through Scalia requisition this secret data for the inevitable trial test of these measures. Until then as I said- one accepts the most reasonable alternative available.

Occy