United States of the American Dictatorship?

[Kramerman]

And what about that arab doctor who you said was innocent and recently got released? If he was innocent, why was he arrested?

heh, dude, inocent people are arrested everyday. They have evidence that links them to something, but in the end it turns out that they are innocent, and then they are released.

EDIT: And seeing as how I don't trust any agency in the US government as far as I could throw them, 'possibly significant evidence' isn't enough for me.

Why do you have such distrust? Do you know how many watchdog groups are out there that keeps their eye on the various bureaucracies moves? Not to mention the press, who are ravenous when it comes to political and government scandal. Talking about paranoia, dont get me started on conspiracy theorists...

So, IOW, the US government has acted illegally. How nice.

no, they have only acted in violation of a Supreme Court's interpretation of the Constitution from the late 1960s. But since the Supreme court has done nothing about this, one can assume they feel that the court ruling doesnt apply in this case, such as the Freedom of Speech doesnt apply everytime, it has limits.

[GeneralTacticus]

heh, dude, inocent people are arrested everyday. They have evidence that links them to something, but in the end it turns out that they are innocent, and then they are released.

Point taken.

Why do you have such distrust? Do you know how many watchdog groups are out there that keeps their eye on the various bureaucracies moves? Not to mention the press, who are ravenous when it comes to political and government scandal. Talking about paranoia, dont get me started on conspiracy theorists...

Because there are many, many things that don't get mentioned in the press and which the government lies about. Do you know anything about what happened in El Salvador? Or Guatemala? OR Nicaragua? Or Cambodia? Or Iraq? The US government has either suppported or directly committed atrocities all over the world, and this gets no mention whatsoever in the media. I think that;s reason enough not to trust them.

no, they have only acted in violation of a Supreme Court's interpretation of the Constitution from the late 1960s. But since the Supreme court has done nothing about this, one can assume they feel that the court ruling doesnt apply in this case, such as the Freedom of Speech doesnt apply everytime, it has limits.

But where's the justification? If there was a valid reason why informing them of the evidence against them would be a bad idea, ok, but what was it?

[Kramerman]

But what would this 'what if' one be? Just remember, we haven't even seen any proof that OBL was behind September 11, have we? There's no evidence as to who really did it.

The what if is what if one of the detainees knew of a terrorist plot. You still have said nothing about that. You can read more in my earlier posts about those consequences.

Heh, and I think the video clip of OBL saying how the 9/11 attack was more than he could ever have hoped for, and was much more successfulk than he thought would happen is plenty of evidence for me, let alone all the various other things that link Al Quida and OBL to 9/11. I am very surprised to still see people denying this fact.

Which is the same as arresting people based on paranoia. Considering some of stuff I've been reading, and posted here recently, I could probably qualify as having 'thin suspicions of terrorist connections'

Yes, im sure the FBI, with its infinite resources and man power, has all the time in the world to keep files and tabs on everyone who is slightly suspicious. These people must have had significant reason to be on FBI watch.

They may see it that way, but that doesn't make them right. They are supposed to be above panicking in situations like this, and try to return some reason to the discussion.

the supreme court isnt panicking at all. It is their job to interpret the COnstitution and how it applies to circumstances. In this circumstance, of clear and present danger, they do not see anything wrong with the governemnts actions.

Then why weren't they arrested then?

LOL, becasue before there was 9/11, their arrest for what little evidence in hand would of sent up an uproar. But in clear and present danger, they could be arrested. If you have knowledge of the inner workings of the US Constitution and how it applies to law, you would understand this.

Compared to what? If you went around arresting people because you felt that it would nbe better to keep them in custody for a while than to risk them committing a crime, then you coudl arrest damn near everybody.

Listen to yourself. The reason not nearly everyone ios arrested is because their is a big differnce between stealing a loaf of bread, and killing 3000 people and destroying billions in commercial infrastructure. And the risk of most stealing some bread is significantly less than the risk of these 1000 men who may have or known someone who may have been a terrorist.

Law is not an exact science. Like many religions, it is based on inerpretaions, and must be applied differently depending on the degree of the situation.

[Edan]

Originally posted by GeneralTacticus The original reaosn for the controversy over it was that they were arrested without a trial.

Obviously there was some sort of system to verify that the man was innocent - since he was released. And that, I think, is the most important part.

I know not the details of the case, however, or what nationality the doctor was (though I'd guess he wasn't an american citizen). However, the police do have the power to detain people, even citizens, for a certain period of time. And the police do have the power to detain someone (for question, whatever). In the case of citizens, it's something like a day or two, in the case of illegal immigrants, it was something like 6 months - and that was before 9/11.

During wartime, IIRC, the courts ruled during WW2 that the government could detain people without trials for longer periods of time (though, IIRC, not indefinately) - indeed, a number of foreign spies, as well as one or two american citizens working for Germany were detained that way (though, IIRC, one of them testified against the others shortly afterwards).

Now, personally, I don't think that citizens should be held indefinatly without being charged or have access to lawyers, and I don't think that non-citizens should be held without some sort of check by the Judicial branch to make sure the power isn't being abused, and that those detained for no reason or a bad reason get released - fortunatly, it appears that there is some sort of check, and, while I am still a little angry about the Padilla situation, he has been given access to his lawyer, which is a step in the right direction.

Edit (wanted to add some remarks) IMO, the initial government reaction to detain people was shortsighted, premature, and largely due to their not knowing what they were doing in response to what was a very clear and present danger. They've since improved - maybe not enough, but slowly they are learning and edging towards making less stupid reactions. (at least, I hope so)

[GeneralTacticus]

The what if is what if one of the detainees knew of a terrorist plot. You still have said nothing about that. You can read more in my earlier posts about those consequences.

But is there any reason to think they knew anything about a terrorist plot? Suspicion isn't enough for me, especially when the country has just experienced a major terrorist attack and is in a very high state of alarm.

Heh, and I think the video clip of OBL saying how the 9/11 attack was more than he could ever have hoped for, and was much more successfulk than he thought would happen is plenty of evidence for me, let alone all the various other things that link Al Quida and OBL to 9/11. I am very surprised to still see people denying this fact.

These other things being? And fro what I've read, there are significant doubts about the validity of that tape, and of the translation.

Yes, im sure the FBI, with its infinite resources and man power, has all the time in the world to keep files and tabs on everyone who is slightly suspicious. These people must have had significant reason to be on FBI watch.

Yes, and until I know what those reasons are, I remain suspicious. The US government has lost any claim to be blieved on it's word.

the supreme court isnt panicking at all. It is their job to interpret the COnstitution and how it applies to circumstances. In this circumstance, of clear and present danger, they do not see anything wrong with the governemnts actions.

But how, exactly, did these suspects pose a clear and present danger? Something else did, but what did they have to do with that?

LOL, becasue before there was 9/11, their arrest for what little evidence in hand would of sent up an uproar. But in clear and present danger, they could be arrested. If you have knowledge of the inner workings of the US Constitution and how it applies to law, you would understand this.

So, IOW, they cashed in on the general panic to do what they couldn't have otherwise?

Listen to yourself. The reason not nearly everyone ios arrested is because their is a big differnce between stealing a loaf of bread, and killing 3000 people and destroying billions in commercial infrastructure. And the risk of most stealing some bread is significantly less than the risk of these 1000 men who may have or known someone who may have been a terrorist.

You still haven't explained what connection those suspects had to 9/11, other than 'the FBI said they did'. That isn't enough.

Law is not an exact science. Like many religions, it is based on inerpretaions, and must be applied differently depending on the degree of the situation.

True enough.