PDA

View Full Version : "Guilty until proven innocent" - Intel employee


Rower_CPU
Apr 14, 2003, 01:05 PM
http://news.com.com/2010-1071-996625.html?tag=fd_nc_1

On Mar. 20, the FBI arrested Hawash at gunpoint in Intel's parking lot near Portland for reasons that remain confidential. A 38-year-old American citizen with a wife and three children, he has not been charged with a crime.

This is a development that deserves close attention in the technology community. More than other industries, the computer business relies on immigrants. And some, like Hawash, are getting caught up in the U.S. Justice Department's campaign against suspected domestic terrorists.

wdlove
Apr 14, 2003, 01:27 PM
We are currently in a War against Terrrorism. I'm willing to give the benefit of the doubt on this!

pseudobrit
Apr 14, 2003, 01:35 PM
Originally posted by wdlove
We are currently in a War against Terrrorism. I'm willing to give the benefit of the doubt on this!

Yes, but this is a war with no conditions for victory. Thus it can last forever, thus the benefit of the doubt becomes the law of the land.

They came for the Communists, but I wasn't a Communist - so I didn't object; They came for the Socialists, but I wasn't a Socialist - so I didn't object; They came for the trade union leaders, but I wasn't a trade union leader - so I didn't object; They came for the Jews, but I wasn't a Jew - so I didn't object; Then they came for me - and there was no one left to object.

-- Martin Niemoeller

Mr. Anderson
Apr 14, 2003, 01:55 PM
Its truly sad and a willingness or faith in this case might be misplaced. I understand the need for security, but when no one gets any info and they have carte blanch on what they do with him in terms of holding him, well, that's just not right.

I'm thinking that the laws are a little over zealous at the moment and that hopefully things will work out that it won't become a bigger problem.

But in the mean time that doesn't help anyone selected for this special treatment.

D

jelloshotsrule
Apr 14, 2003, 02:19 PM
sounds like what they had in england to try to grab irish terrorists.... like in "in the name of the father"...

great :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

MrMacMan
Apr 14, 2003, 03:51 PM
Wow that is scary... make donations to a place that gets their assets frozen, get sent to secrets courts...

:mad: Exactally what the hell I've been telling people about, everyone gets a gag order or is told not to talk about it and know what ever knows what happens.

the free mike site (http://www.freemikehawash.org/)

Well now that all of you know they can do this, do something to help stop it!

gwangung
Apr 14, 2003, 05:13 PM
Deja vu, folks. The exact same thing happened to Japanese Americans in WW II, and they had no recourse as well.

That was a demonstrable violation of civil rights and we're letting it happen again.

It isn't a CHOICE between civil rights and security against terrorism; you CAN have both.

mymemory
Apr 14, 2003, 05:18 PM
The US goverment is acting pretty cuban lately.
1. They go to a war without paying attention to the UN.
2. People with "peace" t-shirts are arrested in the mall.
3. Now this.

?

RandomDeadHead
Apr 14, 2003, 06:09 PM
I'm thinking that the laws are a little over zealous at the moment

You think that is over zealous? Go do some research on the current marijuana laws.

Let the flaming begin.:eek:

bousozoku
Apr 14, 2003, 07:17 PM
Originally posted by gwangung
Deja vu, folks. The exact same thing happened to Japanese Americans in WW II, and they had no recourse as well.

That was a demonstrable violation of civil rights and we're letting it happen again.

It isn't a CHOICE between civil rights and security against terrorism; you CAN have both.

That's right. You don't dare look different or else you'll be arrested. How many good Arab-American citizens are still being detained for no good reason?

WWII United States failed to mention to their own people that they were imprisoning other American citizens. How many Japanese-Americans died because of such fear and racism?

rainman::|:|
Apr 14, 2003, 07:47 PM
i can't stand the government, i can't stand the deprivation of civil liberties that occurs on a daily basis in this country, and i really *hate* the fact that the government has condoned racism.

terrorist laws, marijuana laws, marriage laws... the government just can't seem to figure it out...

see, everyone is willing to see their liberties and freedoms go down the toilet with the idea that it supports an ongoing war... but do you honestly expect these rights to be returned to us when the 'war' is over? hell, when WILL the war be over? Face it, you just sacraficed freedom for yourself, your children, your childrens' children... and given the government a little more.

Now who's a communist???

:) see this is why i don't participate in political discussions often...

pnw

wdlove
Apr 14, 2003, 08:35 PM
Our government is not perfect, but compared to all the other governments on earth it's the best that man could develop. No other country has our freedom. It's that freedom that we are protecting.

pseudobrit
Apr 14, 2003, 09:04 PM
Originally posted by wdlove
Our government is not perfect, but compared to all the other governments on earth it's the best that man could develop. No other country has our freedom. It's that freedom that we are protecting.

Yes, because Iraq was just about to conquer and take my freedoms.

And what's this "most free" stuff? What do you base that on? I can name at least half a dozen nations off the top of my head that afford their citizens more or just as many freedoms as we have.

pseudobrit
Apr 14, 2003, 09:06 PM
One more thing:

I'd rather be dead from terrorism than alive and in a nation that has secret arrests.

748s
Apr 14, 2003, 09:13 PM
Originally posted by wdlove
No other country has our freedom.

:confused: how do you know this? there are many countries with more freedom. dragging citizens away to secret prisons suggests it's time for regime change in the USA.

MrMacMan
Apr 14, 2003, 09:59 PM
Originally posted by pseudobrit
One more thing:

I'd rather be dead from terrorism than alive and in a nation that has secret arrests.

Go Police State!

3ed row left side
'So Your living in a police state' (http://www.comedycentral.com/tv_shows/thedailyshowwithjonstewart/videos_corr.jhtml?startIndex=1&p=colbert)

bousozoku
Apr 14, 2003, 10:48 PM
Originally posted by wdlove
Our government is not perfect, but compared to all the other governments on earth it's the best that man could develop. No other country has our freedom. It's that freedom that we are protecting.

I'd say that Japan's and England's (not the whole U.K. though) are quite good.

sosumi
Apr 15, 2003, 07:21 AM
I think Bob Dylan should write a song about this, like he did for "The Hurricane"...

Sol
Apr 15, 2003, 10:44 AM
Originally posted by wdlove
Our government is not perfect, but compared to all the other governments on earth it's the best that man could develop. No other country has our freedom. It's that freedom that we are protecting.

Sounds like you need to take a round the world trip my friend. In a lot of European countries people have the freedom to purchase and smoke marijuana in legitimate businesses like cafeterias, become members of Communist parties which in turn have the freedom to participate in democratic elections, and even publish or purchase hard-core pornography sold in any street news-stand. Vulgar as they may be, these are just a few examples of the freedoms that people enjoy in many countries that are not America.

amnesiac1984
Apr 15, 2003, 11:03 AM
Originally posted by bousozoku
I'd say that Japan's and England's (not the whole U.K. though) are quite good. What do you mean by "not the whole UK though"? There may be slightly different laws in Scotland and Wales and Northern Ireland but I'm pretty sure we all have the same freedoms. (Not sure abouyt N Ireland though as you know there has been trouble there). If you meant that it did not include Ireland, Ireland is not part of the UK.

amnesiac1984
Apr 15, 2003, 11:06 AM
Originally posted by wdlove
Our government is not perfect, but compared to all the other governments on earth it's the best that man could develop. No other country has our freedom. It's that freedom that we are protecting.

Oh yeah the in the US you are free to keep firearms.
:rolleyes:

SO all these democratic countries where you cannot be kept detained unless you have chrages, oh, except they are not aloud to have firearms, does that make them less free?

Anyway, say it is the best government on earth. But you admit it is not perfect, so you are happy to see this happen, jsut becuase the government is good in other ways. So the government is not perfect, whats wrong with trying to make it closer to being perfect? Its definately better than it backtracking isn't it?

macfan
Apr 15, 2003, 12:41 PM
Originally posted by Sol
Sounds like you need to take a round the world trip my friend. In a lot of European countries people have the freedom to purchase and smoke marijuana in legitimate businesses like cafeterias, become members of Communist parties which in turn have the freedom to participate in democratic elections, and even publish or purchase hard-core pornography sold in any street news-stand. Vulgar as they may be, these are just a few examples of the freedoms that people enjoy in many countries that are not America.

Sol,
Any American has the right to become a member of the Communist party and participate in democratic elections. Your idea of freedom is simply the right to smoke pot in a business and buy hard core porn off the sidewalk?


I'd say that Japan's and England's (not the whole U.K. though) are quite good.

bousozoku,
Does this include the cameras that track people all over London? Did you know that books can be banned in the UK? Did you know that libel cases are often brought in British courts rather than American courts because the US has a greater degree of freedom of expression and a higer bar to prove libel? While freedoms are quite good in the UK, they are not at the level of the United States.


amnesiac1984,

From Amnesty International:
In the United Kingdom new security legislation, in the wake of the 11 September attacks in the USA, opened the door to human rights violations. The Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Act 2001 was passed in December after less than a month of parliamentary and public scrutiny. It allows the Secretary of State to order indefinite administrative detention, without charge or trial and without recourse to judicial review, of any non-UK national deemed a "suspected international terrorist and national security risk" on the basis of secret evidence.

Looks like we do have many of the same freedoms.

topicolo
Apr 15, 2003, 01:26 PM
Originally posted by wdlove
Our government is not perfect, but compared to all the other governments on earth it's the best that man could develop. No other country has our freedom. It's that freedom that we are protecting.

No offense, but that is the most blind, chauvinistic, and sweeping statement I've read today. We can't possibly protect freedom by arresting people without charging them for any crimes. The road to hell is paved with good intentions.

Taft
Apr 15, 2003, 01:29 PM
Originally posted by macfan

bousozoku,
Does this include the cameras that track people all over London? Did you know that books can be banned in the UK? Did you know that libel cases are often brought in British courts rather than American courts because the US has a greater degree of freedom of expression and a higer bar to prove libel?


Right, because there are no cameras at sporting events, public places and subways in this country. And our government would never consider (http://onlinebooks.library.upenn.edu/banned-books.html) banning books or passing laws that are unreasonably restrictive on free speech.

There is no WAY our government would try anything like that. We are, after all, the land of the free. :rolleyes:

Just like in the US, other country's governments do unreasonable things in the name of security, peace and order. These things often violate the constituations--or their equivelent--of those countries. And, just like here those actions and laws are often challenged by individuals, organizations and businesses that are adversely restricted by those actions or laws.

Not ALL countries enjoy the freedoms we do, but there are a great many nations that enjoy freedoms equal to or even above our own.

And you seem to be a bit inconsistent in the freedoms we enjoy: on one hand you decry Britain for banning books and on the other, you belittle someone for saying you can buy explicit publications in other countries but not here. Is that freedom really any different than my freedom to buy a book? Or is it OK to restrict MY freedoms because a moral majority has decided that some actions and words are good and others are bad?

How free are we when we pass anti-smoking laws? Anti-marijuana laws? Anti-sodamy laws? We are the land of the free only up to the point where we offend the Christian majority. After that, our freedoms dissappear in favor of a moral judgement cast by the majority.

Taft

macfan
Apr 15, 2003, 02:17 PM
Taft,

Not ALL countries enjoy the freedoms we do, but there are a great many nations that enjoy freedoms equal to or even above our own.

A great many should include at least a dozen or so with greater freedoms than in the US. Care to list them?

Incidently, I think you can buy explicit publications here, although it is not a habit of mine to do so. Maybe some other posters can fill us in. Your link to banned books includes much that is of historical interest in the US, but little that is current. Many of the Supreme Court decision that have moulded freedom of speech in the US were handed down in the 1960s. The link notes the banning of hate speech in many democracies, but the US is strikingly missing from that list, although I fear it won't be for much longer as there are efforts to ban speech even here. Questions of children's access to certain reading materials does not infringe on the general right of free speech. As minors, children do not enjoy the full set of rights that adults enjoy. That is not always a bad thing. The parents can buy any book they want for their kids to read, even if it isn't on the reading list for the local elementary school.

Are you aware of any soddomy laws that are enforced? When was the last time such a law was passed? There might be some, but I haven't seen any reports on them except for them being ruled unenforcable.

Smoking is a stupid habit to start and a tough addiction to break, but I can understand the fear of government intrusion. I also enjoy breathing the cleaner air in public places where smoking is not allowed.

bousozoku,
WWII United States failed to mention to their own people that they were imprisoning other American citizens. How many Japanese-Americans died because of such fear and racism?

While the detention of Japansese Ameicans was a shameful chapter in US history, it was not hidden from view at the time from the people of the United States. I haven't seen any figures on the numbers of Japanese Americans who died while in internment camps or because of the camps. This would tend to indicate that it isn't a particularly high number, but the action was indefensible even if no one had died. These citizens were robbed of not only of their freedom, but also of their homes and businesses.

Taft
Apr 15, 2003, 03:20 PM
I would issue the same challenge, as you are the one proclaiming the US's clear superiority in the area of civil freedoms and rights. What makes us more free than the average Brit, Frenchman, German, or Italian?

About sodomy laws, look here: http://www.sodomylaws.org/usa/texas/txnews71.htm

There are cases of enforcement and of the courts upholding their constitutionality.

You are right that the majority of banned book cases are historical, but it just underscores the point of the fallibility of every nation, including our own. We make mistakes. We pass bad laws. We are evolving and rarely perfect.

But the thing about other nations (Britain, France and Germany included) is that they have system of government very similar to our own. They have carefully setup parliaments, courts and systems of law. Just like here, contradictory laws can be passed, enforced, questioned, upheld, shot down, etc. Its an evolving process. And just like in the US, each has a "freedom line" that people cannot cross. Cross the freedom line and you've gone too far in the system; you'll be punished.

An example I like to throw out is the current laws regarding libraries and monitoring of records. You can't be garaunteed that your record of books checked out and site you've visited at a public library will remain confidential. The government is monitoring you. Is that freedom? There are many examples of abuse of government power and the restrictions of freedom in this country.

So what makes us more free?

Taft

jethroted
Apr 15, 2003, 04:19 PM
I'm glad I don't have to worry about that happening to me where I live. Not that I'm an immigrant, but still a little crazy having the gov't going willy nilly on whoever they want, whenever they want.

nospleen
Apr 15, 2003, 04:35 PM
Originally posted by pseudobrit
One more thing:

I'd rather be dead from terrorism than alive and in a nation that has secret arrests.

I bet when 9/11 happened, you were saying, "How could this happen, our intelligence agencies failed, etc..."
The are trying to protect the nation for everyone. If people are falsely arrested, they will be released.

Taft
Apr 15, 2003, 05:17 PM
Originally posted by nospleen
I bet when 9/11 happened, you were saying, "How could this happen, our intelligence agencies failed, etc..."
The are trying to protect the nation for everyone. If people are falsely arrested, they will be released.

The point is, how do we know that the falsely accused will be released if the grounds for arrest are not released, no charges are filed, the process to determine their status remains private, and no information about the case is made public?

I understand that a certain amount of secrecy is necessary to avoid leaking information to terrorists and their supporters, but we must make sure that due process of law remains intact and that these people get fair treatment under the laws.

I am far too cynical to put my implicit trust in the government to "do the right thing." Are you really that trusting?

Taft

nospleen
Apr 15, 2003, 05:27 PM
Originally posted by Taft
The point is, how do we know that the falsely accused will be released if the grounds for arrest are not released, no charges are filed, the process to determine their status remains private, and no information about the case is made public?

I understand that a certain amount of secrecy is necessary to avoid leaking information to terrorists and their supporters, but we must make sure that due process of law remains intact and that these people get fair treatment under the laws.

I am far too cynical to put my implicit trust in the government to "do the right thing." Are you really that trusting?

Taft

I am that trusting, to an extent. However, I can definitely see the validity of your point. That was one excellent post!

bousozoku
Apr 15, 2003, 06:03 PM
Originally posted by amnesiac1984
What do you mean by "not the whole UK though"? There may be slightly different laws in Scotland and Wales and Northern Ireland but I'm pretty sure we all have the same freedoms. (Not sure abouyt N Ireland though as you know there has been trouble there). If you meant that it did not include Ireland, Ireland is not part of the UK.

No disrespect intended here, but it's just that England has always been a dominant force within the U.K. and they sometimes force their ideas and opinions on the rest of the U.K.

Originally posted by macfan
Does this include the cameras that track people all over London? Did you know that books can be banned in the UK? Did you know that libel cases are often brought in British courts rather than American courts because the US has a greater degree of freedom of expression and a higer bar to prove libel? While freedoms are quite good in the UK, they are not at the level of the United States.

Considering how many criminals are caught by cameras at certain sporting events here in Florida, I would say that the U.S. government are quite happy to enforce whatever paranoic justice they can, whether it treads on people's freedom or not. The current administration seem hell-bent on returning the U.S.A. to the 1950s. I've even heard rumours of a McCarthy-like turn-in-your-neighbours campaign to curb dissent with current policy.

Yes, the laws here are looser, which often allow criminals to commit devastating acts and still be set free to commit crime again.

amnesiac1984
Apr 15, 2003, 06:16 PM
In addition to the freedoms we enjoy in the UK, we have the European Court of Human Rights. Do you have somthing similar?

macfan
Apr 15, 2003, 08:36 PM
Originally posted by amnesiac1984
In addition to the freedoms we enjoy in the UK, we have the European Court of Human Rights. Do you have somthing similar?

Yes. It's called the Bill of Rights. It's been around for a couple of hundrend years.

Taft,
While the US doesn't have any laws that aren't common to many other democracies, I agree that detention of citizens without charges is very disturbing in any country, particularly this one. There are instances, however, where evidence, if revealed in court, would be very detrimental to security. These instances need to have a mechanism for balancing the rights of individual with the need of the society to protect itself.

Sol
Apr 15, 2003, 09:20 PM
No offense but your Bill Of Rights does not seem very relevant to the present political climate. If that document meant anything to the present administration we would not be discussing the fate of a naturalized American who is held with no charges in secrecy somewhere for an indefinite amount of time.

In the name of greater security your government may take away a lot more of your citizens, and your rights. You of course are free to ignore all this and continue believing that America is as good as it gets.

lmalave
Apr 15, 2003, 09:44 PM
Originally posted by pseudobrit
One more thing:

I'd rather be dead from terrorism than alive and in a nation that has secret arrests.

Exactly! I especially can't stand the fact that all these people all too willing to curtail my rights have never experienced terrorism and probably never will. Please, don't fight a "war on terrorism" on my behalf :mad:
I'd rather have freedom and take my chances. Violent crime kills far more many people than terrorism in this country. Totalitarian regimes have much less violent crime. So should we become a totalitarian state by that logic?

I forget how the quote from Ben Franklin goes, but I think it goes something like:

"Those that would sacrifice their freedom for temporary safety deserver neither freedom nor safety."

lmalave
Apr 15, 2003, 09:58 PM
Originally posted by nospleen
I bet when 9/11 happened, you were saying, "How could this happen, our intelligence agencies failed, etc..."
The are trying to protect the nation for everyone. If people are falsely arrested, they will be released.

No, after 9/11 my thought was: what motivated someone to do this. I don't blame our intelligence services. You can NEVER stop terrorism. Look at Israel, it is a tiny country with the world's most advanced intelligence and security measures, yet the suicide bombings don't stop.

The only way to eliminate terrorism is to remove the causes. Look, when I walk down the street, I am implicitly trusting that a passerby won't suddenly pull out a gun or a knife and kill me. Modern civilized society is largely based on trust. Why don't I live in fear of violence? Is it because we have such an efficient police state? Hardly - the security comes from within, from the fact that the vast, vast majority of people in society aren't homicidal psychopaths.

Similarly, we have to create an environment in the world where there is no reason for organized terrorist groups to be formed. Sure, there might still be solitary suicide bombers, but it would be more equivalent to a Columbine-type situation...

bousozoku
Apr 15, 2003, 10:05 PM
Originally posted by Sol
No offense but your Bill Of Rights does not seem very relevant to the present political climate. If that document meant anything to the present administration we would not be discussing the fate of a naturalized American who is held with no charges in secrecy somewhere for an indefinite amount of time.

In the name of greater security your government may take away a lot more of your citizens, and your rights. You of course are free to ignore all this and continue believing that America is as good as it gets.

The Bill of Rights only counts if you agree with the people carrying the guns, badges, and handcuffs.

I tend to be very suspicious of the current political climate being a naturalised citizen and Japanese. I remember discrimination in this country very, very well but I won't back down when faced with it this time.

This country was founded to give choice to people, but I'm afraid that people are so apathetic due to their air conditioning and microwave ovens, that they might not fight for the right to assemble in public, or speak freely, or even to think freely.

pseudobrit
Apr 15, 2003, 11:05 PM
Originally posted by nospleen
I bet when 9/11 happened, you were saying, "How could this happen, our intelligence agencies failed, etc..."
The are trying to protect the nation for everyone. If people are falsely arrested, they will be released.

Nope. I totally understood how it could have happened, and the fact that we shook our heads saying "we could never have predicted or stopped this!" after 9/11 is chilling.

It was in a couple of movies, in the Hart Senate report, and even the Columbine kids had planned to hijack and fly a plane into NYC. Our intel agencies did not fail; they said this could happen. The FBI included it as a key possibility for low-tech, high impact terrorism in a report. All these warnings were ignored. Separating the cockpit from the passengers should have been done long ago.

We could easily have prevented the attacks, but it would have cost the airlines too much money and was too much of a bother.

One of the first worries that crossed my mind was what impact this would have on the American public in the long run:

1) Would we stand up, say "bullcrap! we're not budging and we're not changing our lives because of some worthless terrorist scum, we're going to rebuild the WTC even BIGGER and gather 'round our ideals, our families and our friends, because that's what makes America so great," and refuse to let the terrorists win?

or...

2) Would we say, "oh no! terrorists can hit any of us at any time. You could be killed by a terrorist tomorrow unless we change things right away! A little bit of snooping by the gov't and detaining terrorist scum or even suspected terrorist scum (they're all towelheads anyway) is certainly worth stopping future attacks. I mean, we could arrest these guys in secret and hold them without trial ( I know I won't be arrested because I'm not a terrorist), or we could all DIE! I'm choosing to live. God bless America!"
and wave the flag while burning the foundations and ideals it stands for?

As I sit here, typing a message that could be read by the FBI and used against me in a secret trial where I won't have an attorney (or maybe a trial) and under cover of a "Code Orange" I think the terrorists have won.

macfan
Apr 16, 2003, 02:11 PM
Originally posted by bousozoku
The Bill of Rights only counts if you agree with the people carrying the guns, badges, and handcuffs.

That is not quite true. There are, in fact, those who carried guns, badges, and handcuffs who are now behind bars or no longer carrying guns, badges, and handcuffs because their activities infringed upon the Bill of Rights. Of course, you are free to ignore this and pretend that the United States today is a totalitarian state like Nazi Germany or the Soviet Union or Imperial Japan or Saddam's Iraq. Courts are already checking the executive branch when the courts believe that law enforcement has gone too far. This time, unlike when some of my forebearers were rounded up in spite of court rulings in their favor, our system is working. It might not be working fast enough for some, but I would remind you that working fast is something more common to totalitarian states than it is to democratic ones. It will take awhile to establish an equilibrium.

amnesiac1984,
A note on the European Court of Human Rights.... Does the European Court of Human Rights has some omnipotent power to right wrongs? One might ask that court, you and what army? The European Court of Human Rights doesn't offer anything substantively different from that which is offered to the various states of the United States in the US Federal government. Moreover, the Federal government of the US has the ability and has shown the will to enforce the rulings of its judiciary in a serious manner as was done through the use of 101st Airborne to integrate school in Arkansas when the governor there decided that he didn't want to enforce the rights that the federal courts has ruled must be granted.

amnesiac1984
Apr 16, 2003, 07:36 PM
Bot sure about what army it uses. But I'm pretty sure that it means a lot. The difference however is that is is independent of governments and so does not have a particular agenda. Countries could decide against following rulings, but i think that if they did they would possibly be expelled from the EU. I think this is how it works, but I could be way off, anyone know any better?

necrosmith
Apr 18, 2003, 05:00 AM
Originally posted by pseudobrit
One more thing:

I'd rather be dead from terrorism than alive and in a nation that has secret arrests.

Here, here.