So, what now? Do they charge him? He's an American citizen who's spent 2½ years in custody - charged with no crime - without his lawer, access to due process, habeas corpus, etc. He has no constitutional safeguards and can be held like that because the president says he can be held like that. Who says the president has that power? The president does. Could he have even made a "dirty bomb?"
posted by Smedleyman on Mar 2, 2005 - 29 comments

Mass arrests of Muslims in LA. The BBC is reporting US immigration officials in Southern California have detained hundreds of Iranians and other Muslim men who turned up to register under residence laws brought in as part of the anti-terror drive.

CNN, FOX News, and the like have extensive coverage.....sort of.
posted by CrazyJub on Dec 19, 2002 - 64 comments

You Have The Right To Remain Silent
or...maybe not...
Police can hold people in custody and force them to talk, so long as their incriminating statements are not used to prosecute them, U.S. Solicitor Gen. Theodore B. Olson and Michael Chertoff, the chief of the Justice Department's criminal division, say in their brief to the court. It "will chill legitimate law enforcement efforts to obtain potentially life-saving information during emergencies," including terrorism alerts, if police and FBI agents can be sued for coercive questioning, they add

Are YOU ready to talk or will I have to get my rubber hose and smash your face with my club?
posted by nofundy on Nov 25, 2002 - 93 comments

Should non-citizens have the same rights under the law as citizens? What about those who have naturalized? A poll given by NPR, The Kaiser Family Foundation, and Harvardâ??s Kennedy School of Government finds that a majority of those taking the poll think that, if accused of terrorism, a non-citizen should have fewer rights than a citizen. You can take the poll yourself here.
posted by emmling on Sep 9, 2002 - 45 comments

FBI orders ISP to remove Daniel Pearl murder video
The video [not work safe, or even home safe] that surfaced shortly after his death has been targeted by the FBI for removal on the internet, apparently using the 1996 federal obscenity law. Anyone want a Bonsai Kitten or a Y2K Video also? The Editors Note speaks volumes: After this story was edited, FBI spokeswoman Sandra Carroll called Wired News to say the bureau was merely giving advice to websites hosting the Pearl video -- and was not threatening prosecution.
posted by plemeljr on May 23, 2002 - 48 comments

Carnivore and other forms of snooping approved by congress there has been some references to what this articles deals with but this gives a slightly broader perspectve.
posted by Postroad on Sep 15, 2001 - 1 comment

First Amendment advocates fear erosion of rights in aftermath of attacks. In the aftermath of the worst terrorist attack in America, First Amendment proponents expect and fear that the nation's heightened national security concerns will soon overpower some of its basic freedoms.
posted by tpoh.org on Sep 14, 2001 - 3 comments