Re: Who represents the detained? Nobody...
They HAVE representation, and I don't THINK the Bill of Rights says anywhere that you get to see Mommy if you're arrested, but that you can obtain representation, you are not required to incriminate yourself, and so forth. In theory.
Get a clue. The issue is not "get to see Mommy."
Rather, the issue is the holding of 600+ various persons, some of whom are very vaguely claimed to be "material witnesses."
Note too that many of the detained may not have lawyers.
How about we play "let's hypothesize the conditions that make our argument true." That saves having to ground your reasoning in reality. The Washington Post article says "and limited access to their lawyers".... and "The Justice Department has also refused to reveal the names of the lawyers representing them." At least they have lawyers, don't you get the point? The dead had no lawyers to argue for thier lives. "That process is supervised by a court." The dead had no judge supervising their execution.
Most of them are not being held on criminal charges. They are held as material witnesses or on immigration holds. I don't know if a material witness has a right to an
Then you don't know what you're arguing, do you? Pick your battles. Wiretapping expansion, big problem, Lack of luxury accomodations for material witnesses who are at the least crucial information resources and may be co-conspirators, little problem.
Naturally the thin legal fiction of having a lawyer technically representing you, no matter whether you've been able to speak with him or exchange any useful information, makes any brutal prison regime an acceptable one. No matter that the Washington Post article, which started this thread, did not say that all post-Sep.11 detainees have lawyers, and there is reason to believe some do not. -Declan On Wed, Oct 17, 2001 at 12:55:00PM -0700, Anonymous wrote:
They HAVE representation, and I don't THINK the Bill of Rights says anywhere that you get to see Mommy if you're arrested, but that you can obtain representation, you are not required to incriminate yourself, and so forth. In theory.
Get a clue. The issue is not "get to see Mommy."
Rather, the issue is the holding of 600+ various persons, some of whom are very vaguely claimed to be "material witnesses."
Note too that many of the detained may not have lawyers.
How about we play "let's hypothesize the conditions that make our argument true." That saves having to ground your reasoning in reality.
The Washington Post article says "and limited access to their lawyers".... and "The Justice Department has also refused to reveal the names of the lawyers representing them."
At least they have lawyers, don't you get the point? The dead had no lawyers to argue for thier lives.
"That process is supervised by a court." The dead had no judge supervising their execution.
Most of them are not being held on criminal charges. They are held as material witnesses or on immigration holds. I don't know if a material witness has a right to an
Then you don't know what you're arguing, do you? Pick your battles.
Wiretapping expansion, big problem,
Lack of luxury accomodations for material witnesses who are at the least crucial information resources and may be co-conspirators, little problem.
On Wednesday, October 17, 2001, at 01:53 PM, Declan McCullagh wrote:
Naturally the thin legal fiction of having a lawyer technically representing you, no matter whether you've been able to speak with him or exchange any useful information, makes any brutal prison regime an acceptable one. No matter that the Washington Post article, which started this thread, did not say that all post-Sep.11 detainees have lawyers, and there is reason to believe some do not.
Of the 600+ being held without charges, bail, lawyers, etc., wanna bet that about 500+ of them will never be charged, never give any useful information? This was a "panic sweep," a "round up all the suspects" case, a shotgun blast of arresting anyone with any imagined, guessed, or coincidence in names connection with the likely attackers (and since many of those in the 4 planes were believed to be using stolen passports, even the coincidence in names is even more coincidental). Anyway, as Declan says, this is being covered in newspaper stories. (No coverage that I've seen in a hundreds of hours of coverage on CNN, MSNBC, Fox, ABC, CBS, or NBC. None. Just vague mentions of "several hundred detainees.") The issue is not "coddling the terrorists," the issue is the expansion over decades of police powers to the point where "speedy trial" and "jury of peers" and "due process" means nothing. I expect King George would have loved to have these kinds of police powers: if Patrick Henry is causing troubles in the colonies, but no grounds for arresting him can be found, just arrest him and hold him indefinitely as a "material witness." And don't "coddle" him! That'll take care of the uppity colonists and their quaint talk about liberty. And King George _really_ would have been thrilled to have the Nazi-like powers to put a hundred thousand persons of some ethnic background into concentration camps! --Tim May "You don't expect governments to obey the law because of some higher moral development. You expect them to obey the law because they know that if they don't, those who aren't shot will be hanged." - -Michael Shirley
On Wed, Oct 17, 2001 at 01:59:28PM -0700, Tim May wrote:
Anyway, as Declan says, this is being covered in newspaper stories. (No coverage that I've seen in a hundreds of hours of coverage on CNN, MSNBC, Fox, ABC, CBS, or NBC. None. Just vague mentions of "several hundred detainees.")
Right. The Post, to its credit, has featured this story prominently. I escaped the CNNMSNBCFOX pit for a few days and made the mistake of tuning back in today. The poor saps all seem to be doing an imitation of Headline News (a valuable service) but without realizing it. Not American journalism at its finest. -Declan
On Wed, 17 Oct 2001, Anonymous wrote:
They HAVE representation, and I don't THINK the Bill of Rights says anywhere that you get to see Mommy if you're arrested, but that you can obtain representation, you are not required to incriminate yourself, and so forth. In theory.
Get a clue. The issue is not "get to see Mommy."
Rather, the issue is the holding of 600+ various persons, some of whom are very vaguely claimed to be "material witnesses."
Note too that many of the detained may not have lawyers.
What does Ex parte milligan mean here?
participants (4)
-
Anonymous -
cubic-dog -
Declan McCullagh -
Tim May