sweet land of ...
March 31, 2003 1:23 PM Subscribe
Secret Police strike again. What country is this, again?
One in which our rights go far beyond what's promised in the constitution, apparently. Or used to, perhaps.
posted by namespan at 1:42 PM on March 31, 2003
posted by namespan at 1:42 PM on March 31, 2003
The guy gave $10,000 to an organization being investigated for possible links to terrorism. Wouldn't a police state just have gone ahead and shot him already?
posted by techgnollogic at 1:49 PM on March 31, 2003
posted by techgnollogic at 1:49 PM on March 31, 2003
Oh, well that's alright, then.
They haven't shot him yet, what nice people.
posted by signal at 1:52 PM on March 31, 2003
They haven't shot him yet, what nice people.
posted by signal at 1:52 PM on March 31, 2003
techgnollogic, do you have any links corroborating this? i'd be interested to know the specifics of his case. i would actually love to believe our government still follows some sort of externally verifiable logic in these matters.
posted by donkeyschlong at 1:56 PM on March 31, 2003
posted by donkeyschlong at 1:56 PM on March 31, 2003
"Ahh, Danny, this isn't Russia. Is this Russia? This isn't Russia, is it?"
posted by mkelley at 2:02 PM on March 31, 2003
posted by mkelley at 2:02 PM on March 31, 2003
Article from Oregonlive.com: "Unconnected to the investigation of Hawash are his donations three years ago to an Islamic charity now under FBI scrutiny. Last year, the U.S. Treasury Department shut down Illinois-based Global Relief Foundation, saying some money was used to support terrorist activities. One of Global Relief's founders, Rabih Haddad, is in federal custody in Michigan, fighting deportation after a judge ruled he was an associate of terrorists."
posted by some chick at 2:02 PM on March 31, 2003
posted by some chick at 2:02 PM on March 31, 2003
Here's a few links on Maher 'Mike' Hawash.
He authored a book and has worked at a few jobs, no mention of his alleged donations though.
posted by fatbaq at 2:04 PM on March 31, 2003
He authored a book and has worked at a few jobs, no mention of his alleged donations though.
posted by fatbaq at 2:04 PM on March 31, 2003
Donkeyschlong, read the Oregonian article on the links page of the linked website. The guy donated around $10,000 to an organization that was shut down by the FBI a year ago.
This, however, scares me. I live a few miles from that intel campus, and I'm a software developer ... I wonder if there's anything in my past that'll lead them to arrest me? Better go back and read my MeFi posts again.
posted by SpecialK at 2:04 PM on March 31, 2003
This, however, scares me. I live a few miles from that intel campus, and I'm a software developer ... I wonder if there's anything in my past that'll lead them to arrest me? Better go back and read my MeFi posts again.
posted by SpecialK at 2:04 PM on March 31, 2003
Here's a newsgroup post from April of last year quoting him on the Israeli/Palestinian conflict.
Here's an article that contains more details surrounding the case, including the donations I mentioned earlier to Global Relief Foundation, which was placed on the UN Terror List last October.
posted by techgnollogic at 2:06 PM on March 31, 2003
Here's an article that contains more details surrounding the case, including the donations I mentioned earlier to Global Relief Foundation, which was placed on the UN Terror List last October.
posted by techgnollogic at 2:06 PM on March 31, 2003
Whatever he did/didn't do, charge him or release him. It's that simple and I believe it's the law. Commrades?
posted by LouReedsSon at 2:11 PM on March 31, 2003
posted by LouReedsSon at 2:11 PM on March 31, 2003
Yeah, I'm down with that. "Detaining" people all willy-nilly is no way to run a free democracy, that's for sure.
posted by techgnollogic at 2:14 PM on March 31, 2003
posted by techgnollogic at 2:14 PM on March 31, 2003
So your past donations to a group recently placed on a UN terror list is enough reason to lock you away without any charges or access to counsel? Nice. There's no way to tell if he's a threat or not since there isn't any trial or legal proceedings. How many people dig any deeper into a charity they donate to other than it on the surface says that it will be supporting a cause they believe in?
posted by substrate at 2:19 PM on March 31, 2003
posted by substrate at 2:19 PM on March 31, 2003
"...charge him or release him...I believe it's the law"
Nope. Not any more. The Patriot Act is now the law.
You want some freedom with those fries?
posted by mr_crash_davis at 2:21 PM on March 31, 2003
Nope. Not any more. The Patriot Act is now the law.
You want some freedom with those fries?
posted by mr_crash_davis at 2:21 PM on March 31, 2003
It would probably be prudent to only donate to government-approved faith-based initiatives from now on.
posted by Armitage Shanks at 2:26 PM on March 31, 2003
posted by Armitage Shanks at 2:26 PM on March 31, 2003
i would actually love to believe our government still follows some sort of externally verifiable logic in these matters.
I'd have to say that based upon recent evidence, I've come to the conclusion that logic has left washington and moved on to greener pastures.
posted by pejamo at 2:27 PM on March 31, 2003
I'd have to say that based upon recent evidence, I've come to the conclusion that logic has left washington and moved on to greener pastures.
posted by pejamo at 2:27 PM on March 31, 2003
More about GRF's links to terrorism.
Still, the Washington Post article linked from the Free Mike website says that something like 44 people have been arrested and detained as material witnesses. Though no concrete numbers are available, I think it's perfectly clear that no claim can be made that Arabs or Muslims are being arrested arbitrarily or in great numbers. Keeping an eye on the situation is prudent and necessary. Calling this a police state tactic is not exactly called for.
Substrate: considering that the GRF raised something like $5,000,000 each year, and Mr. Hawash donated $10,000 - 0.2% of their annual total of funds raised - in 2 separate ~$5,000 donations over an unspecified period of time, I think it's perfectly obvious that simply donating to the organization is, in fact, NOT sufficient to get yourself arrested. It's more than likely that there are a number of persons who donated to this organization who were unaware of any links the GRF may have to terrorist organization, whose intentions were, indeed, honorable and who have not been arrested. Considering the fairly substantial donations - on an individual family income level - and Mr. Hawash's connections to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, isn't it at least plausible that there could be more to the story than is available to the public and that the FBI is not merely harrassing persons of middle eastern descent just for kicks?
posted by techgnollogic at 2:33 PM on March 31, 2003
Still, the Washington Post article linked from the Free Mike website says that something like 44 people have been arrested and detained as material witnesses. Though no concrete numbers are available, I think it's perfectly clear that no claim can be made that Arabs or Muslims are being arrested arbitrarily or in great numbers. Keeping an eye on the situation is prudent and necessary. Calling this a police state tactic is not exactly called for.
Substrate: considering that the GRF raised something like $5,000,000 each year, and Mr. Hawash donated $10,000 - 0.2% of their annual total of funds raised - in 2 separate ~$5,000 donations over an unspecified period of time, I think it's perfectly obvious that simply donating to the organization is, in fact, NOT sufficient to get yourself arrested. It's more than likely that there are a number of persons who donated to this organization who were unaware of any links the GRF may have to terrorist organization, whose intentions were, indeed, honorable and who have not been arrested. Considering the fairly substantial donations - on an individual family income level - and Mr. Hawash's connections to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, isn't it at least plausible that there could be more to the story than is available to the public and that the FBI is not merely harrassing persons of middle eastern descent just for kicks?
posted by techgnollogic at 2:33 PM on March 31, 2003
<stage whisper>Armitage, you're giving away the plan too soon! Wait for it...</stage whisper>
posted by dragstroke at 2:33 PM on March 31, 2003
posted by dragstroke at 2:33 PM on March 31, 2003
techgnollogic you're the only one talking about a "police state" in the thread. Instant straw man?
posted by signal at 2:50 PM on March 31, 2003
posted by signal at 2:50 PM on March 31, 2003
The article specified that the arrest was UNCONNECTED to the donations. So, my $2 donation in 1980 to Noraid probably won't get me busted.
That said, it should be deeply disturbing to every American that this can happen, without explanation. "Trust us."
posted by kcmoryan at 2:52 PM on March 31, 2003
That said, it should be deeply disturbing to every American that this can happen, without explanation. "Trust us."
posted by kcmoryan at 2:52 PM on March 31, 2003
Oh sorry. I guess I got "secret police" and "police state" tangled together. I suppose you could have the former without the latter, but they're almost necessary to one another, in my mind at least.
posted by techgnollogic at 2:57 PM on March 31, 2003
posted by techgnollogic at 2:57 PM on March 31, 2003
Just another one of those cyber-begging sites. Next thing you know, he' be asking for money for a penis enlargement.
posted by Witty at 2:57 PM on March 31, 2003
posted by Witty at 2:57 PM on March 31, 2003
Just another one of those cyber-begging sites. Next thing you know, he'll be asking for money for a penis enlargement.
posted by Witty at 2:57 PM on March 31, 2003
posted by Witty at 2:57 PM on March 31, 2003
I don't care who he gave money to. Last time I checked, being guilty of conspiracy required direct involvement in the planning or execution of a criminal act that either takes place or was imminent.
Giving money to an organization that may or may not have turned around and given a portion thereof to questionable organizations that may or may not have been involved in past or future terrorism doesn't meet this test.
But this is what the Patriot Act gives us.
When's the next bus to Canada?
posted by Cerebus at 2:59 PM on March 31, 2003
Giving money to an organization that may or may not have turned around and given a portion thereof to questionable organizations that may or may not have been involved in past or future terrorism doesn't meet this test.
But this is what the Patriot Act gives us.
When's the next bus to Canada?
posted by Cerebus at 2:59 PM on March 31, 2003
Calling this a police state tactic is not exactly called for.
Secret warrants, detainment without due process, and holding someone who's not been charged with any crime in solitary confinement absolutely are police state tactics.
isn't it at least plausible that there could be more to the story than is available to the public
That's exactly the problem. With all this secrecy, there's no accountability, no due process, and no guarantee of civil rights; we're left with "this was a bad guy, you're just going to have to trust us on that." I'm sorry, I don't have such blind faith in our government to do the right thing, and I don't see why I should be expected to.
I'm appalled that this is happening in America. I'm even more appalled that anyone -- anyone -- supports it.
posted by ook at 2:59 PM on March 31, 2003
Secret warrants, detainment without due process, and holding someone who's not been charged with any crime in solitary confinement absolutely are police state tactics.
isn't it at least plausible that there could be more to the story than is available to the public
That's exactly the problem. With all this secrecy, there's no accountability, no due process, and no guarantee of civil rights; we're left with "this was a bad guy, you're just going to have to trust us on that." I'm sorry, I don't have such blind faith in our government to do the right thing, and I don't see why I should be expected to.
I'm appalled that this is happening in America. I'm even more appalled that anyone -- anyone -- supports it.
posted by ook at 2:59 PM on March 31, 2003
Cerebus, before you hop a Greyhound, read the article carefully. It's not because of the donations!
On the other hand, we don't know why he's in solitary confinement, without charges. . Umm, mind if I sit next to you?
posted by kcmoryan at 3:04 PM on March 31, 2003
On the other hand, we don't know why he's in solitary confinement, without charges. . Umm, mind if I sit next to you?
posted by kcmoryan at 3:04 PM on March 31, 2003
isn't it at least plausible that there could be more to the story than is available to the public and that the FBI is not merely harrassing persons of middle eastern descent just for kicks?
Without a public trial, we'll never know. That's the point.
posted by jpoulos at 3:05 PM on March 31, 2003
Without a public trial, we'll never know. That's the point.
posted by jpoulos at 3:05 PM on March 31, 2003
technologic, I'm proud to say that I don't follow your logic at all. The post, which I guess you find damning, states his observations on the Israeli behaviour. It doesn't say he wants to be a suicide bomber, it doesn't say he's saving his money to support suicide bombers.
As for the size of the donation relative to his personal income level, well, what of it? A lot of people I work with tithe themselves 10% and donate it to their church. They probably assume that their church, while being pro-life, isn't going to buy a Molotov cocktail to kill an abortionist. I donate a substantial sum to a few non-profits that I feel strongly about. I trust that, for instance, the EFF isn't going to use any of my funds to assassinate politicians that support the Patriot Act but I don't make any calls in to question them about it either.
Is it plausible that this guy knowingly donated money to Al-Queda? Well, given the definition of plausible I can't agree with that. I will agree that there is a possibility but that's where courts and lawyers usually come in. The government files charges, presents evidence and the case is decided. At least that's what should be happening. Unfortunately it isn't.
posted by substrate at 3:12 PM on March 31, 2003
As for the size of the donation relative to his personal income level, well, what of it? A lot of people I work with tithe themselves 10% and donate it to their church. They probably assume that their church, while being pro-life, isn't going to buy a Molotov cocktail to kill an abortionist. I donate a substantial sum to a few non-profits that I feel strongly about. I trust that, for instance, the EFF isn't going to use any of my funds to assassinate politicians that support the Patriot Act but I don't make any calls in to question them about it either.
Is it plausible that this guy knowingly donated money to Al-Queda? Well, given the definition of plausible I can't agree with that. I will agree that there is a possibility but that's where courts and lawyers usually come in. The government files charges, presents evidence and the case is decided. At least that's what should be happening. Unfortunately it isn't.
posted by substrate at 3:12 PM on March 31, 2003
The Patriot Act is now the law. You want some freedom with those fries?
Yeah! I have a new .sig
posted by IndigoSkye at 3:17 PM on March 31, 2003
Yeah! I have a new .sig
posted by IndigoSkye at 3:17 PM on March 31, 2003
Arresting hundreds of people who support causes the government doesn't like (or elements within the government don't like) would be foolhardy. The outrage would be over the top and heads would roll.
Instead, you arrest just a few people, to keep the rest scared and quiet. It's a classic technique, and one that works far, far better than rounding up masses of people.
posted by cell divide at 3:25 PM on March 31, 2003
Instead, you arrest just a few people, to keep the rest scared and quiet. It's a classic technique, and one that works far, far better than rounding up masses of people.
posted by cell divide at 3:25 PM on March 31, 2003
In other words, I didn't think donkeyshlong was referring to the Benevolent Secret Police who Act For The Good of All Mankind. :) Wasn't trying to shift the debate or create a straw man, though. It was an accident.
Ook: I agree that the secrecy is a potential problem, and I think it's vitally important for the Department of Justice and the Office of Homeland Security and whoever else to be open and forthcoming with details and access to attorneys and so forth.
It is absolutely necessary that we hold the authorities responsible for explaining the rationale behind their actions and that we do not allow ourselves to get comfortable with people disappearing into the hands of the FBI on a regular basis. I don't support the permanent detention/disappearing of anyone as a suspect of an actual crime, much less a material witness. If there's a case to be made against someone, it should be done so without delay in open court.
Substrate: I don't find any aspect of what I've found out about the case to be damning. I'm not calling the guy a straight up terrorist or claiming that its blatantly obvious that he was up to anything nefarious. I was reacting, in part, to donkeyshlong's characterization of this arrest as the secret police striking again. Also, I'm tired of ridiculous comparisons being made between the Bush administration/America in general and various real-deal police states.
The guy was arrested on March 20th... 11 days ago. He donated a large sum of money to an organization being investigated for links to terrorism. He has been in contact with his wife and lawyer and has not been interrogated. He has not disappeared from the face of the earth. It is not clear what the facts are, but at this time I see no obvious reasons to cry foul.
posted by techgnollogic at 3:29 PM on March 31, 2003
Ook: I agree that the secrecy is a potential problem, and I think it's vitally important for the Department of Justice and the Office of Homeland Security and whoever else to be open and forthcoming with details and access to attorneys and so forth.
It is absolutely necessary that we hold the authorities responsible for explaining the rationale behind their actions and that we do not allow ourselves to get comfortable with people disappearing into the hands of the FBI on a regular basis. I don't support the permanent detention/disappearing of anyone as a suspect of an actual crime, much less a material witness. If there's a case to be made against someone, it should be done so without delay in open court.
Substrate: I don't find any aspect of what I've found out about the case to be damning. I'm not calling the guy a straight up terrorist or claiming that its blatantly obvious that he was up to anything nefarious. I was reacting, in part, to donkeyshlong's characterization of this arrest as the secret police striking again. Also, I'm tired of ridiculous comparisons being made between the Bush administration/America in general and various real-deal police states.
The guy was arrested on March 20th... 11 days ago. He donated a large sum of money to an organization being investigated for links to terrorism. He has been in contact with his wife and lawyer and has not been interrogated. He has not disappeared from the face of the earth. It is not clear what the facts are, but at this time I see no obvious reasons to cry foul.
posted by techgnollogic at 3:29 PM on March 31, 2003
There is a list of countries he's willing to work in on this site. Some interesting commentary on his political alignments. Apparently he's willing to work in Iraq and Pakistan but not India. Would anyone else put this on a resume?
posted by ejunek at 4:18 PM on March 31, 2003
posted by ejunek at 4:18 PM on March 31, 2003
I think Father Martin Niemöller said i best, really:
"First they came for the Jews
and I did not speak out
because I was not a Jew.
Then they came for the Communists
and I did not speak out
because I was not a Communist.
Then they came for the trade unionists
and I did not speak out
because I was not a trade unionist.
Then they came for me
and there was no one left
to speak out for me."
Replace "Jew" with "Muslim" or "Arab". Discuss amongst yourselves.
posted by spazzm at 4:36 PM on March 31, 2003
"First they came for the Jews
and I did not speak out
because I was not a Jew.
Then they came for the Communists
and I did not speak out
because I was not a Communist.
Then they came for the trade unionists
and I did not speak out
because I was not a trade unionist.
Then they came for me
and there was no one left
to speak out for me."
Replace "Jew" with "Muslim" or "Arab". Discuss amongst yourselves.
posted by spazzm at 4:36 PM on March 31, 2003
There is a list of countries he's willing to work in on this site. Some interesting commentary on his political alignments. Apparently he's willing to work in Iraq and Pakistan but not India. Would anyone else put this on a resume?
apparently he's also willing to work in israel but not iran, europe, east asia ... um, what's your point?
posted by donkeyschlong at 4:55 PM on March 31, 2003
apparently he's also willing to work in israel but not iran, europe, east asia ... um, what's your point?
posted by donkeyschlong at 4:55 PM on March 31, 2003
What country is this, again?
Didn't you hear? the name has been changed in a secret session of Congress. We are not longer the U.S.A. Now we're the U.S.S.A.: The United Secure States of America.
Can't you just feel the security hovering over you, its comforting eye on you at all times?
posted by eustacescrubb at 4:57 PM on March 31, 2003
Didn't you hear? the name has been changed in a secret session of Congress. We are not longer the U.S.A. Now we're the U.S.S.A.: The United Secure States of America.
Can't you just feel the security hovering over you, its comforting eye on you at all times?
posted by eustacescrubb at 4:57 PM on March 31, 2003
What country is this, again?
the North American Dictatorship, or NAD
posted by delmoi at 4:57 PM on March 31, 2003
the North American Dictatorship, or NAD
posted by delmoi at 4:57 PM on March 31, 2003
the country has gone insane. time magazine, march 24, in a short paragraph reserved for corrections at the end of the letters section 'apologizes' for referring to john lindh (the 'american taliban') in an earlier issue as a terrorist, since "all charges of terrorism had been dropped." when did we repeal innocence until proven guilty? nowadays, being charged alone makes you guilty. at least, that would seem to be what the editors at time think. feh.
posted by quonsar at 5:21 PM on March 31, 2003
posted by quonsar at 5:21 PM on March 31, 2003
donkeyschlong: Perhaps no point at all, I've just never seen anyone willing to move their "job, home, family, and deep roots in the community" to Iraq in the last six months. More than likely he cites those countries because of his (possible) language skills, I just found it a somewhat surprising list.
posted by ejunek at 5:32 PM on March 31, 2003
posted by ejunek at 5:32 PM on March 31, 2003
ejunek, based on the page I'd say it's some sort of auto-generated list based on language (Arabic, which is also one of the official languages of Israel, which would explain that). If you look a little lower, you will see that the box for "willing to relocate" is not checked.
It amazes me that people try to justify the secret arrest at all. It doesn't bother me that someone can be arrested for suspicion of aiding terrorists, but the secrecy behind it troubles me deeply.
posted by cell divide at 5:39 PM on March 31, 2003
It amazes me that people try to justify the secret arrest at all. It doesn't bother me that someone can be arrested for suspicion of aiding terrorists, but the secrecy behind it troubles me deeply.
posted by cell divide at 5:39 PM on March 31, 2003
I would agree with you cell divide. It seems that the best way to avert crisis is to bring attention to the source instead of shrouding the details. On the other hand, if he was charged with aiding terrorists, he would no doubt be ostracized from his job and community (guilty or not). If he is being cooperative, the secrecy makes him look like more of a victim, and honestly that might have less of an effect on his personal life. Granted, if the government thought he would be 100% cooperative they probably wouldn't have taken him into custody (I hope).
The bottom line is there just isn't any information, which leads either to an aversion with the government or the man in question - neither of which is a good thing.
posted by ejunek at 6:13 PM on March 31, 2003
The bottom line is there just isn't any information, which leads either to an aversion with the government or the man in question - neither of which is a good thing.
posted by ejunek at 6:13 PM on March 31, 2003
I'm just glad to see folks on this thread asking "why all the secrecy?"
posted by FormlessOne at 8:28 PM on March 31, 2003
posted by FormlessOne at 8:28 PM on March 31, 2003
This treads very close to being guilt by association, will the real Joe McCarthy please stand up.
posted by GreenDragon at 8:35 PM on March 31, 2003
posted by GreenDragon at 8:35 PM on March 31, 2003
During the past Holiday season, I learned from a family friend who is an attorney in the Bay Area that people were being rounded up - told to report to INS for a "special registration" then taken into federal custody and shipped off to a federal prison. These people were of middle eastern descent and were not allowed to contact anyone. In fact, some of their families filed missing persons reports after spending anxious hours and days trying to find out what had happened to their loved ones.
Unfortunately, Mike is not the first, nor do I think the last.
posted by sillygit at 9:01 PM on March 31, 2003
Unfortunately, Mike is not the first, nor do I think the last.
posted by sillygit at 9:01 PM on March 31, 2003
"...our rights go far beyond what's promised in the constitution..."
Hmmm. What's that pesky ninth amendment say? Oh yeah, "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."
So the Constitution pretty much grants us all kinds of rights it doesn't explicitly mention. Funny how that works. Just thought you might want the reminder.
posted by drywall at 9:18 PM on March 31, 2003
Hmmm. What's that pesky ninth amendment say? Oh yeah, "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."
So the Constitution pretty much grants us all kinds of rights it doesn't explicitly mention. Funny how that works. Just thought you might want the reminder.
posted by drywall at 9:18 PM on March 31, 2003
Let me first say that I don't think our country has descended to a police state or anything like Nazi Germany. That said, we seem at least pointed a similar direction, which is why these famous words seem so relevant.
First they came for the Jews
and I did not speak out
because I was not a Jew.
Then they came for the Communists
and I did not speak out
because I was not a Communist.
Then they came for the trade unionists
and I did not speak out
because I was not a trade unionist.
Then they came for me
and there was no one left
to speak out for me.
--Pastor Martin Niemöller
posted by drywall at 9:22 PM on March 31, 2003
First they came for the Jews
and I did not speak out
because I was not a Jew.
Then they came for the Communists
and I did not speak out
because I was not a Communist.
Then they came for the trade unionists
and I did not speak out
because I was not a trade unionist.
Then they came for me
and there was no one left
to speak out for me.
--Pastor Martin Niemöller
posted by drywall at 9:22 PM on March 31, 2003
This is disturbing. Any lawyers here want to comment on the business of being able to hold a US citizen in jail for an indefinite amount of time, not charged with any crime, but solely because he is a 'material witness' to something? This guy sounds like he's a pretty stable sort, too, home, family, highly-respected job... doesn't sound like a flight risk.
The main problem with the story is that we're only hearing one side, from an advocacy web page. I can't find anything more on the net than anyone else has.
posted by Slithy_Tove at 9:51 PM on March 31, 2003
The main problem with the story is that we're only hearing one side, from an advocacy web page. I can't find anything more on the net than anyone else has.
posted by Slithy_Tove at 9:51 PM on March 31, 2003
Yes drywall. We are growing a fascism. I firmly believe that if Bush makes it into a second term the Republic will be lost. I am getting very concerned about the direction we are heading.
posted by filchyboy at 10:46 PM on March 31, 2003
posted by filchyboy at 10:46 PM on March 31, 2003
Slithy Tove, the words you're looking for are habeas corpus. The Constitution states that The Privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases or Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it. {Article I, § 9}. Though under the legislative portion, the Constitution doesn't clarify authority, and it's been handled differently over the years, including suspension in specific areas and for specific federal crimes, and to date the assertion of executive authority in this area hasn't been challenged. It's also important to note that habeas corpus is only a right of review, that is, a demand of a hearing demonstrating that there is lawful justification for the detention. Depending on circumstances, the courts can and do deny writs of habeas corpus. A familiar version can be found in the bond or bail hearing.
The expansion of the material witness authority, however, goes beyond issues of flight risk and directly towards public safety (as in the Constitution's language). Even innocence isn't, as you might expect, defense against being held under these circumstances, because the standard of proof required of the state is lower than that for criminal conviction. A cynic might suspect this is precisely why it's being used in some of these cases, of course.
My own take on this is that Hawash isn't himself suspected of terrorist-supporting activities, but that he seems to know an awfully lot about GRF and they're leaning on him heavily to get him to turn.
posted by dhartung at 10:56 PM on March 31, 2003
The expansion of the material witness authority, however, goes beyond issues of flight risk and directly towards public safety (as in the Constitution's language). Even innocence isn't, as you might expect, defense against being held under these circumstances, because the standard of proof required of the state is lower than that for criminal conviction. A cynic might suspect this is precisely why it's being used in some of these cases, of course.
My own take on this is that Hawash isn't himself suspected of terrorist-supporting activities, but that he seems to know an awfully lot about GRF and they're leaning on him heavily to get him to turn.
posted by dhartung at 10:56 PM on March 31, 2003
The Niemoller quote would be more appropriate here if Mike Hawash was just one of a vast number of Arabic people being rounded up en masse - for being Arabic. If you insist this IS what is happening, please cite the numbers involved.
For crying out loud, it has been eleven days now and - I doubt this has escaped anyone's notice - we are currently in the midst of a war. Give them a moment to frigging breathe, ok?
And before anyone snarks it out, no I do not think what happened to American citizens of Japanese descent in WWII was right or proper. It was an act born of fear and racism, and it WAS en masse, with no justification other than their racial origin. That was a case where Niemoller would have been apropos... though thankfully we did NOT slide down that slippery slope. Maybe finding what we found in the ruins of the Reich gave us pause?
Mike Hawash is a citizen of this country - and if 30 or 60 days from now, he is still held in limbo in this fashion, with no reason presented or any judicial review, then there would be a lot more justification at outrage. But eleven days in the midst of a war? Please.
posted by John Smallberries at 11:26 PM on March 31, 2003
For crying out loud, it has been eleven days now and - I doubt this has escaped anyone's notice - we are currently in the midst of a war. Give them a moment to frigging breathe, ok?
And before anyone snarks it out, no I do not think what happened to American citizens of Japanese descent in WWII was right or proper. It was an act born of fear and racism, and it WAS en masse, with no justification other than their racial origin. That was a case where Niemoller would have been apropos... though thankfully we did NOT slide down that slippery slope. Maybe finding what we found in the ruins of the Reich gave us pause?
Mike Hawash is a citizen of this country - and if 30 or 60 days from now, he is still held in limbo in this fashion, with no reason presented or any judicial review, then there would be a lot more justification at outrage. But eleven days in the midst of a war? Please.
posted by John Smallberries at 11:26 PM on March 31, 2003
and if 30 or 60 days from now, he is still held in limbo in this fashion
How long, in your opinion, is the lag-time associated with habeas corpus?
posted by Yelling At Nothing at 12:32 AM on April 1, 2003
How long, in your opinion, is the lag-time associated with habeas corpus?
posted by Yelling At Nothing at 12:32 AM on April 1, 2003
Did the Patriot Act contain a provision that suspended the right to seek a writ of habeas corpus? If so, then they can hold him as long as they want. If not, I suspect they'll let him go if a writ is procured.
By the way eleven days in the midst of a war is a long time, It's not like the courts and all the FBI agents are busy with the war.
When you come down to it, this is disturbing!
posted by mygoditsbob at 5:06 AM on April 1, 2003
By the way eleven days in the midst of a war is a long time, It's not like the courts and all the FBI agents are busy with the war.
When you come down to it, this is disturbing!
posted by mygoditsbob at 5:06 AM on April 1, 2003
But eleven days in the midst of a war? Please.
And you said that right out loud too!
So I suppose you'd be ok with a similar interuption of your life then? Please.
posted by LouReedsSon at 5:08 AM on April 1, 2003
And you said that right out loud too!
So I suppose you'd be ok with a similar interuption of your life then? Please.
posted by LouReedsSon at 5:08 AM on April 1, 2003
John Smallberries, the Niemoeller quote is about creeping injustice, and that's exactly what we're looking at. To point out that we're not producing quite the same numbers of the rounded-up yet is absurd -- that kind of "defense" is exactly what Niemoeller is speaking out against. As a resident alien, I find Mike Hawash's story profoundly troubling.
posted by muckster at 9:15 AM on April 1, 2003
posted by muckster at 9:15 AM on April 1, 2003
No, the defense Niemoeller denounced was, "Well, at least they're not after me."
If there were hundreds of Muslims or Arabs disappearing in this country that would be cause for action... If there were dozens being held in secret locations without being able to contact the outside world, that would be at least cause for concern. But what we have here is one man of perhaps 40 or 50 people who've been arrested as material witnesses, and Hawash has been locked up for 12 days and has been IN CONTACT WITH HIS WIFE AND LAWYER.
"First they came for a few suspected terrorists, so I kept my eye on the situation and inquired as to the basis for their detainment" doesn't have quite the same ring to it, now does it?
posted by techgnollogic at 10:59 AM on April 1, 2003
If there were hundreds of Muslims or Arabs disappearing in this country that would be cause for action... If there were dozens being held in secret locations without being able to contact the outside world, that would be at least cause for concern. But what we have here is one man of perhaps 40 or 50 people who've been arrested as material witnesses, and Hawash has been locked up for 12 days and has been IN CONTACT WITH HIS WIFE AND LAWYER.
"First they came for a few suspected terrorists, so I kept my eye on the situation and inquired as to the basis for their detainment" doesn't have quite the same ring to it, now does it?
posted by techgnollogic at 10:59 AM on April 1, 2003
Plus, he isn't being held under provisions of the Patriot Act. He's being held under the Material Witness Statutes of 1984, which were enacted in Federal law originally for use in mafia prosecution.
posted by pjgulliver at 12:54 PM on April 1, 2003
posted by pjgulliver at 12:54 PM on April 1, 2003
For what it's worth, here is a good exposition on the use and abuse of the Material Witness Statute.
posted by mygoditsbob at 1:21 PM on April 1, 2003
posted by mygoditsbob at 1:21 PM on April 1, 2003
Obviously, it's not Hawash who is involved with the terrorist groups, but his daughter who has conveniently set up her fiance to detract attention from her terrorist group's real agenda which is to detonate a bomb in downtown LA and ruin the county's faith in President Palmer.
bushfuckistan
Excellent.
posted by jennyb at 2:10 PM on April 1, 2003
bushfuckistan
Excellent.
posted by jennyb at 2:10 PM on April 1, 2003
I CAN'T BELIEVE YOU JUST GAVE THAT AWAY. You've ruined my life jennyb.
posted by Summer at 1:10 AM on April 2, 2003
posted by Summer at 1:10 AM on April 2, 2003
Oh no! That was from almost a month ago! I guess there's a delay in broadcast in England???
Oh my I feel just terrible now. I'm so sorry!
posted by jennyb at 12:59 PM on April 2, 2003
Oh my I feel just terrible now. I'm so sorry!
posted by jennyb at 12:59 PM on April 2, 2003
Next time, vote. Vote for the guy most likely to defeat Bush.
posted by Pretty_Generic at 4:01 AM on April 7, 2003
posted by Pretty_Generic at 4:01 AM on April 7, 2003
Forget it. Bush's dad and the pullers of the puppet strings will be buying the presidency for Bush's dog next.
posted by websavvy at 11:42 AM on April 7, 2003
posted by websavvy at 11:42 AM on April 7, 2003
« Older Malevich | King Kong Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
posted by goosestepping poxi! at 1:28 PM on March 31, 2003