On Fri, Nov 30, 2001 at 10:44:09AM -0800, Tim May wrote: | | Attempting to get this through. About half of the messages I have tried (the quoting may be off.) | > On Friday, November 30, 2001, at 09:06 AM, Adam Shostack wrote: | > | >> On Fri, Nov 30, 2001 at 08:21:32AM -0800, Tim May wrote: | >> | On Friday, November 30, 2001, at 07:55 AM, Harmon Seaver wrote: | >> | | >> | > Dubbya should be impeached, and both he and Asscruft arrested | >> for | >> | > treason. | >> | | >> | Quite interesting the language they keep using: "Terrorists don't | >> have | >> | rights." | >> | | >> | The 1200 persons detained without due process, without habeas corpus, | >> | for close to three months, are presumed to be "terrorists" and thus | >> are | >> | denied the rights guaranteed by the Constitution. | >> | >> No, they're not. See this article in yesterday's Times: | >> http://www.nytimes.com/2001/11/28/national/28LEGA.html?ex=1007614800&en= | >> ec5ced02619720c8& | >> ei=5040&partner=MOREOVER | >> | > | > I see nothing in this article to alter the gist of what I said. The | > article says 1100 were held at one time. 548 still being held. Yeah, the | > charges are vague "immigration violations," but we know why they were | > really detained and are still being held. (BTW, lawyers for a bunch of | > them, those who have managed to get lawyers that is, have said their | > clients would like to return to their home countries. Should be SOP to | > let a "immigration violation" detainee solve the problem by leaving, | > right?) No, I was really quibbling over the terrorist bit. Even the government can no longer make a straight-faced claim they're terrorists. Now, they need to explain how they're ignoring the civil rights of people, who, as you point out, are being held incommunicado, and, in my non-lawyerly not-really-all-that-humble-opinion, how their action differs from kidnapping. | > An undisclosed number of those detainees are being held incommunicado as | > "material witnesses." Not as immigration violations, but as "material | > witnesses." The same vague basis could be used to arrest and detain | > without charge dozens of folks just like us on our list. | > | > Civil liberties types used to gasp at British plans to arrest suspects | > without charge and hold them for up to 72 hours on the say-so of a | > burowcrat...look at the holding of 548-1100 people for a period of | > weeks-months without any charges being filed in open court. | > | > "Immigration violations" and "material witness" my ass! Quite. | >> What grounds Ashcroft is using to deny them their civil rights is not | >> clear. | >> | >> Who will rid me of this meddlesome Constitution, indeed. | >> | >> | The police state measures rushed into law by Congress will be used to | >> | suppress dissidents long after this war is over. | >> | >> Quite sad. There was an article in IP last night about Canada doing | >> the same thing; defining protesters as terrorists. (There's a history | >> here; the RCMP was quite vicious in its post-arrest treatment of | >> protesters against some Indonesian dictator a few years ago.) | > | > I expect the next Cypherpunk to be arrested will be tried under these | > new "terrorist" laws. | > | > I won't go so far as to predict that a dozen active list members will be | > rounded up in pre-dawn raids and held incommunicado and without charges | > being filed promptly, and with normal bail procedures, but it wouldn't | > surprise me. | > | > What it will probably take is for some kind of ricin attack on Federal | > Persecutor offices. A few dozen dead Feds and I'd expect every group | > that has ever discussed ricin and sarin to be raided. | > | > Terrorists have no rights. First we determine them to be terrorists, | > then we hold a military tribunal. Amerikan justice is the envy of the | > world. Indeed. Amazing how quickly we can lose the value of so many hard-fought precedents. Adam -- "It is seldom that liberty of any kind is lost all at once." -Hume