| WIKI | FAQ | Tech FAQ | |
 http://csua.com/feed/ | |
| ||||||
| 5/25 |
| 2004/5/7 [Politics/Domestic/Crime, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:30090 Activity:very high |
5/7 Don't tell me people's civil liberties are not being trampled on
in The War Against Terror:
http://www.koin.com/webnews/20042/20040507_mayfieldb.shtml
\_ I don't think anyone actually denys it. Republicans just don't
care. Actually, I think that's an understatement. Republicans
such as John Ashcroft simply don't believe in civil liberties,
and clearly demonstrate by their actions that the believe American
due process of law to be a mistake, not a virtue. These people
are every bit as much enemies of the United States and everything
it stands for as our foreign enemies. If things in this coutry
do not change direction, there *will* be civil war.
\_ I think I should mention that *some* Republicans do care about
civil liberties and dislike Ashcroft, but for whatever reason,
they're not that vocal about it. -motd liberal
\_ When I say we're heading towards civil war, it's not because of
specific actions by Republican leadership; it's because of
statements and actions by ordinary citizens who happen to be
republicans. Take a look at the motd. Listen to AM talk
radio for an hour. Maybe you didn't notice in 2001
when these people were calling for Arab Muslims to be rounded
up into concentration camps? This problem won't go away
by Bush getting defeated in this election. It will either
go away by a consistent, nation-wide cultural shift towards
more freedom-loving values, or, more likeley, by worsening
until it comes to war.
\_ Actually, a secession along county (rather than state)
lines, based on voting majority would work out nicely
(for me). -- ilyas
\_ what's wrong with state lines?
\_ Too much oppression of voting minorities that way.
-- ilyas
\_ There's a tradeoff. I think a little group of
counties like in the smaller states works
better. They can afford better quality gov't
and better share power over natural resources.
\_ Actually a break into two roughly equal sized
chunks will work ok, as long as they both
allow immigration, people will just move to the
'right' chunk after a while. Large chunks have
the advantage of not getting taken over by
Random_Power_001. -- ilyas
Random_Power_001. If the two chunks started off
on equal footing, it would be an interesting
social and political experiment. -- ilyas
\_ So you think they are going to break out their guns
if Bush loses in November?
\_ I had a dream last night that the Administration
postponed the election to "avoid sending the wrong
message to our enemies." The reaction was not pretty.
\_ I think he's saying that liberals are going to wake
up and start the war.
\_ I sure hope not. -motd liberal
\_ Given the economic numbers today, that seems unlikely.
\_ The bill of rights only protects the weak and the subversive
while govt regulations are stilfing us the real Americans.
When and if your prophecy comes true, is it hard to bet
which side will win? The peacniks in lotus pose or we who
will take any and every measure to defeat them? Hmm, it
would be fun when we round up liberal chicks as illegal
combatants for interrogation. -- neocon
\_ Maybe so, but you do realize there's a big difference
between traditional crime a terrorism, right? The laws
designed for traditional crime just don't hold for
terrorism. It's a different bag.
\_ "Republicans just don't care" is a huge overstatement. The view
is that they'll give up some liberties so planes aren't crashing
into buildings, nukes aren't going off, suicide bombers aren't
exploding. The idea is, "If the government is watching you, you
must be doing something bad already."
I'm not saying this is the correct view, but I believe this is
the view held by most Republicans.
\_ How is this any different than any other criminal federal grand jury
case?
\_ How long can the government hold a person in solitary without
charging him with a crime or allowing him access to a lawyer?
\_ in civilian courts, I believe 24 hours.
\_ In national security cases, as long as they please.
(Newsflash: This is not new with Bush.)
\_ Basically, if you are designated an enemy combatant,
or a material witness
\_ Give us an example from the last 30 years.
\_ Here is a whole raft of examples post 9/11
http://www.rcfp.org/secretjustice/terrorism/materialwitness.html
\_ I believe op mis-stated his question, and wanted
to know of examples between the Vietnam War and 9/11.
\_ Yes, exactly, thank you. -op
\_ here's one example:
http://www.feminist.org/news/newsbyte/uswirestory.asp?id=2329
there are other examples. but no clue how
prevalent usage of the statute was in general.
\_ Oh, that doesn't count. Anti-abortion
activists don't have rights.
\_ The "material witness statute" was enacted in 1984. I
don't know how often it's been invoked pre-9/11.
\_ As usual posters on the MOTD have ZERO appreciation of history
during wartime (or anytime for that matter). Citizens today
enjoy far and away more civil liberties than any time in the
history of this country. Learn about some of the actions
taken by FDR, Wilson, and Lincoln to suppress dissent.
This story sounds very similar to the Intel employee
who was locked up for some time, all the while
into Afghanistan?
screaming bloody murder about innocence, and is now serving
a generous prison term.
\_ As I recall, he was convicted of providing aid to a terrorist
organization. He claims he gave money to an Islamic charity.
The gov't said that the charity gave money to Hamas. Did he
really intend to give money to Hamas? Or is he simply guilty of
not researching the charity's finances and being Arab?
\_ You recall incorrectly: -jrleek
http://csua.org/u/77w
\_ OK, my bad. There was *someone* sent up the river for
giving money to somebody who gave money to Hamas.
\_ He faces 10 years in prison for trying, and failing to get
into Afghanistan?
\_ That and material aid to the Taliban. Think about
it. He's a US citizen. Helping out the enemy in
time of war is treason. In the old days they just
would have shot him.
\_ Yeah, Wen Ho Lee served a generous prison term too.
\_ Shut up you Facsist Nazi Bad Man! NO FREE SPEECH FOR
FASCISTS!
\_ I'd be really interested in a book on what the crap
Mr. Hawash was thinking. What convinced him to leave a good
job, and 3 kids, to go and "die as a martyr?"
\_ Phony spirituality. "Making people do stupid things since
34AD". -- ilyas
\_ so what's your excuse?
\_ Just garden variety stupidity in my case. -- ilyas
P.S. Do I know you, Mr. Secret Admirer #5?
\_ 34AD? It goes back a whole heck of a lot farther that
that, anti-christian boy.
\_ Note, I said 34, not 33. -- ilyas
\_ Ah, good old Mike Hawash I thought that was dang funny.
\_ most of those actions were deplorable. Japanese internment,
hell the whole Civil War was an unethical disaster.
\_ The internment was not bad. That there property was
not returned afterwards was. Other ethnic groups
were also detained including Italians, Germans and
Mexicans.
\_ So you'd be fine with the government locking you up for
a few years in the name of security?
\_ Of course he wouldn't. But the only lock up those
"other" people, not REAL Americans.
\_ My point is given the saboteur rhetoric widespread
in Japanese newspapers at the time, the caches of
weapons that were found, and the context of the
times it seems entirely reasonable to evacuate
coastal regions of recently arrived Japanese (not US)
citizens and their children (and Germans, Italians
initially get lawyers until the copys figure out what's
and Mexicans).
The Federal government was much smaller so large
scale surveillance was not pluasible, a Japanese
invasion of the west coast was completely
possible, and sabotage in Europe by Axis agents had
done much damage.
They should have been given some payment based on
their detainment and their property returned.
\_ Funny, I thought we were discussing the legality of the
action, not the ethics. legal != ethical (and vice
versa)
\_ Turns out he was one of the lawyers defending Jeffrey Battle,
another of the Portland 7.
\_ If that's true it's a good example of why terrorist don't
initially get lawyers until the cops figure out what's
going on. Terrorists in jail can still communicate deadly
information. |
| 5/25 |
|
| www.koin.com/webnews/20042/20040507_mayfieldb.shtml Mayfield The FBI says his fingerprints turned up on evidence found in Spain hours after the Madrid bombings. Mayfield (pictured) still has not been charged with any crime, but since he's considered a material witness, he can be held here at the jail without being charged. Mayfield, a Portland attorney and Muslim convert, is in solitary confinement because of the high-profile nature of his case. Marshal hold in the jail until he testifies before a federal grand jury. Times reported Friday that FBI agents found Mayfield's fingerprints on a bag containing detonators and other bomb-related equipment left in the alleged bomber's stolen van. Investigators found that van parked at a train station outside Madrid on March 11 -- the day of the bombings. We understand that there were "numerous fingerprints in the van," but the FBI says one set apparently matched Mayfield's. Since this is a federal grand jury matter, the timeline for this case is not public information. Since Mayfield is a material witness, he can be held indefinitely. |
| www.rcfp.org/secretjustice/terrorism/materialwitness.html Gag Orders The Material Witness Statute What is detainment under the material witness statute? The material witness statute permits the detainment of any person who may have information pertaining to a criminal investigation for the purpose of testifying before a grand jury or during a criminal proceeding. In order to detain a material witness, the government must first obtain a warrant. To obtain a warrant, a prosecutor must apply to a federal district judge and provide evidence demonstrating that the alleged witness has information crucial to the proceeding and would be otherwise unavailable. Normally, the evidence is presented in the form of an affidavit from an FBI agent, outlining his knowledge of the alleged witness' role in the investigation. Any person who is detained as a material witness has a right to demand a hearing before a federal judge and the right to counsel, appointed at government expense, if necessary. A federal judge must determine whether the person is, in fact, a material witness and whether he may be detained. Detainment is supposed to be required only if there is a risk of flight or danger. If the judge affirms the detainment, the person may be held for any length of time his testimony is needed for the criminal case. Thus, if his testimony is needed only for the grand jury proceeding, he may be held until he testifies for the grand jury, and then he would be released. If his testimony is deemed necessary for trial, the person could be held until the trial is completed, which could be years. As a practical matter, persons held as material witnesses are rarely released unless the government is ready to release them. If the detainee challenges their detention, the government has other options, such as filing criminal charges against the detainee. Nichols was originally detained as a material witness in connection with the bombing of the Murrah Federal Building in Oklahoma City. Nichols objected to his detention, arguing that there was no evidence that he would flee or otherwise be unavailable. The government then filed criminal charges against Nichols, making it irrelevant whether he would flee as a material witness, and kept him in jail as a criminal suspect. Detainees who are genuine witnesses are expected to testify at grand jury proceedings or trials. If the detainee refuses to testify, then the person can be held in jail for contempt, unless they have a valid Fifth Amendment claim. What happens if the witness invokes the Fifth Amendment? The Fifth Amendment provides witnesses with a right to remain silent if their testimony would incriminate them in any way. If a witness invokes the Fifth Amendment, a judge must determine whether there is a valid Fifth Amendment claim. If the judge determines that the claim is invalid, then the person must testify or he may be jailed for contempt. If the claim is valid, then the government must either release the witness or offer him immunity for his testimony. If immunity is granted and the witness still refuses to testify, then he may be jailed for contempt. Grand jury proceedings are normally closed to the public, so witnesses' testimony to the grand jury would be closed. However, the other court proceedings, such as the hearing to determine whether the witness should be detained or whether the witness has a valid Fifth Amendment privilege, are ordinary court proceedings. Therefore, those proceedings should be presumed open to the public. But, as in any case, the judge may close the proceeding or seal records in some circumstances. The Reporters Committee contends that federal judges should not close material witness proceedings without first evaluating the First Amendment issues involved. The procedures a judge should follow before closing a courtroom are described fully in the section below regarding criminal proceedings. In theory, the warrant and affidavit would be part of the court's records. However, it is likely that courts will seal these records. A court record should be presumptively available to the public. However, records may be sealed if the court makes specific, on-the-record findings demonstrating that closure is necessary to preserve higher values, and if the order is narrowly tailored to serve that interest. Journalists should expect judges to use this test to seal warrants from the September 11th investigation. However, even if a material witness warrant is sealed, the existence of the warrant should be noted on the court's docket. In one case, a criminal defense attorney objected to the fact that the government prosecutors secretly obtained material witness warrants to detain witnesses and failed to tell defense counsel about the warrants. The warrants were not listed on the court docket, and the judge had sealed the records. The appellate court found that it may have been an error to keep secret the existence of the warrants and remanded the case to the trial court for further findings. How have material witness proceedings been used in the War on Terrorism? The Department of Justice has not released an exact tally of persons detained as material witnesses, but it appears that the bulk of detainees who were first detained were brought in as material witnesses. As the investigation continued, many of the "material witnesses" were released or charged with crimes. For example, Osama Awadallah, a student from San Diego, had originally been detained as a material witness after investigators found his name and phone number on a piece of paper in the glove compartment of a hijacker's car. Awadallah told the grand jury that he did not know any of the hijackers, but changed his testimony once he was confronted with evidence that he did know a few of them. Awadallah was charged with perjury and is now being held as a criminal detainee rather than as a material witness. At the time of this report, it appears that only a small portion of the remaining detainees are being held as material witnesses. Civil rights groups and foreign nations have protested the expansive use of material witness warrants, claiming that they were used as an excuse to round up Arab and Muslim men, without adequate evidence demonstrating that they had anything to do with the attacks or the hijackers. For example, in October 2001, The Wall Street Journal reported that Saudi Arabia, once notified of the detainment of its citizens, arranged for the release of nine out of the ten Saudis that had been held as material witnesses. Two of the men were telecommunications company executives who had been in Chicago for a conference. Other detained Saudis included a tourist, a pilot for Saudi Arabian Airlines and a radiologist living in Texas. The detainees alleged that there was no evidence tying them to the attacks or the hijackers. They claimed they had been detained solely because of their ethnicity. |
| www.feminist.org/news/newsbyte/uswirestory.asp?id=2329 Kopp is the registered owner of a 1987 black Chevrolet Cavalier that had been seen in the Buffalo area. The Buffalo News reported yesterday that a Vermont man with ties to the anti-abortion movement was seen jogging near the Slepian home; Kopp is wanted for questioning and has not been named a suspect. We are looking for him everywhere we can," said FBI Special Agent Bernard Tolbert. Slepian is believed to be linked to four other shooting attacks on abortion providers in Upstate New York and Canada. |
| csua.org/u/77w -> www.mercurynews.com/mld/mercurynews/news/6476095.htm?ERIGHTS=6574944070972350495mercurynews::csuamotd@csua.berkeley.edu&KRD_RM=1iqmhooojnhohhhhhhhhilhjlk|csuamotd|N Hawash, 38, faces seven to 10 years in prison for attempting to provide services to the Taliban. In the plea agreement, Hawash admitted that after the terrorist attacks of Sept. Hawash has agreed to testify against the others, known as the Portland Six,'' as part of his plea deal. The news brought an end to a high-profile case that sparked an Internet campaign to proclaim his innocence and raise money for his defense. Wednesday's plea caught at least one of Hawash's supporters by surprise. It was a total shock,'' said longtime friend Rohan Coelho, a former Intel engineer who was the best man at Hawash's wedding. Before that he worked as an Intel employee for nine years. His arrest stunned many people in the community who knew him as a successful engineer, youth soccer coach and devoted family man with a wife and three children. After his arrest, Hawash was held without charge as a material witness for five weeks as proceedings continued in secret. On April 28, Hawash was charged with providing material support to Al-Qaida and conspiracy to levy war against the United States, in addition to conspiring to support the Taliban. The first two charges will be dropped as part of the plea agreement. If Mike Hawash is ultimately convicted of a crime, he should be held to account like anyone, but I would rather sacrifice my own credibility in his support and look a fool if he is guilty, than abandon him to the quick and superficial judgments,'' McGeady wrote in a letter to the Oregonian newspaper in May. Coelho said McGeady was on vacation in Europe but had heard the news Wednesday. Coelho said McGeady and several others agreed to continue their support for Hawash's family. They had raised $20,000 in donations through the Web site. In his plea agreement, Hawash acknowledged that he was asked by other members of an alleged Portland terrorist cell to join them in the trip to Afghanistan. Hawash flew to Hong Kong in October 2001, where he was met by members of the group. The group went from there into mainland China and tried to enter Pakistan. When they failed, Hawash returned to the United States after providing money to the rest of the group. Prosecutors said Hawash will remain in custody until his sentencing, which won't happen until after the the other defendants' trials, which are scheduled to begin in October. The maximum penalty is 10 years in prison, a $250,000 fine, and three years' supervised release. Stephen Houze, Hawash's attorney, said Hawash could have faced more than 20 years in prison if he had been convicted of all the charges. |