US: Immigrants may be held indefinitely

[stacato]

I ran across this quote by Thomas Jefferson and I thought it might be appropriate on this thread:

 

Those who desire to give up Freedom in order to gain Security, will not have, nor do they deserve, either one.

 

Thomas Jefferson

Amen!! Old Tom was a bright guy!!

 

How am I giving up my own freedom? I am not a terrorist, and I am not a suspected terrorist, nor will I ever be one.

Nor is the person being accused until prooven so. Why make them give up all rights to due process?? Why not simply set their bail so high that they can't get out until their case has been adjudicated?? To imprison in defiantly on 'suspicion' with no legal recourse wreaks of fascism--not of freedom!!

 

It seems like they don't want to take even a slight chance of them getting out, because of the danger involved. Don't forget we are talking about terrorists, who can inflict serious damage on mass population, not regular criminals. But what you suggest will probably have the same effect. The suspect will not be able to get out.

[Trigg]

I ran across this quote by Thomas Jefferson and I thought it might be appropriate on this thread:

 

Those who desire to give up Freedom in order to gain Security, will not have, nor do they deserve, either one.

 

Thomas Jefferson

Amen!! Old Tom was a bright guy!!

 

How am I giving up my own freedom? I am not a terrorist, and I am not a suspected terrorist, nor will I ever be one.

Nor is the person being accused until prooven so. Why make them give up all rights to due process?? Why not simply set their bail so high that they can't get out until their case has been adjudicated?? To imprison in defiantly on 'suspicion' with no legal recourse wreaks of fascism--not of freedom!!

 

It seems like they don't want to take even a slight chance of them getting out, because of the danger involved. Don't forget we are talking about terrorists, who can inflict serious damage on mass population, not regular criminals. But what you suggest will probably have the same effect. The suspect will not be able to get out.

We are talking about 'suspected terrorists'. They aren't terrorists until a judge/jury says they are. Still, our court system allows for the potential danger a person may be and the courts can, and do, often set bonds so high, or allow no bonds, in order to protect society and all they need is EVIDENCE, not suspicions!.

[Randy W]

from thePeoplesVoice.org

 

It doesn¡¯t apply to you.

 

So when they come for you, you can tell yourself it¡¯s all a mistake. You¡¯re a good American. Law abiding, pay most of the taxes you¡¯re supposed to pay. So you believe the agent when he explains that they don¡¯t suspect you of any particular crime, but that some of the people you have been in contact with where, in turn, involved in some patterns that suggested other patterns known to be used by terrorists. They¡¯ll sort it all out and get you home in a few weeks. You hope they let your family know where you went without warning.

 

Three years later, you can still tell yourself it¡¯s a mistake, and it¡¯s just bureaucratic bungling that caused it. It still annoys you, though, that you have to wait for trail, if and when.

 

But you have one thing to comfort you. The Great American Spirit that made you what you are today still burns on, in your family, your friends, your neighbors, your church and work associates.

 

They all assume you must have done something. It¡¯s a whole new world since 9/11. You can¡¯t be too careful dealing with people who hate freedom and democracy.

 

It doesn¡¯t apply to them.

[stacato]

I ran across this quote by Thomas Jefferson and I thought it might be appropriate on this thread:

 

Those who desire to give up Freedom in order to gain Security, will not have, nor do they deserve, either one.

 

Thomas Jefferson

Amen!! Old Tom was a bright guy!!

 

How am I giving up my own freedom? I am not a terrorist, and I am not a suspected terrorist, nor will I ever be one.

Nor is the person being accused until prooven so. Why make them give up all rights to due process?? Why not simply set their bail so high that they can't get out until their case has been adjudicated?? To imprison in defiantly on 'suspicion' with no legal recourse wreaks of fascism--not of freedom!!

 

It seems like they don't want to take even a slight chance of them getting out, because of the danger involved. Don't forget we are talking about terrorists, who can inflict serious damage on mass population, not regular criminals. But what you suggest will probably have the same effect. The suspect will not be able to get out.

We are talking about 'suspected terrorists'. They aren't terrorists until a judge/jury says they are. Still, our court system allows for the potential danger a person may be and the courts can, and do, often set bonds so high, or allow no bonds, in order to protect society and all they need is EVIDENCE, not suspicions!.

 

Go to the conclusion in page 16. It explains the government's view on terrorists as "Unlawful combatants" . Some look at them as "Criminals' . I tend to agree with the government's view in this case. I think they are prisoners of war, not criminals. I think we are in a war. Other's may think differently

 

 

http://www.fas.org/man/eprint/reid.pdf

[SirLancelot]

We are talking about 'suspected terrorists'. They aren't terrorists until a judge/jury says they are. Still, our court system allows for the potential danger a person may be and the courts can, and do, often set bonds so high, or allow no bonds, in order to protect society and all they need is EVIDENCE, not suspicions!.

 

 

What court system? You're being much too generous here Trigg. The reason why I'm so adamantly against this new law is that they completely want to hide these "prisoners of war" from the normal criminal court system and place them under god knows what system. I'd be more than ok if some impartial judge had a look and said there's enough evidence to bring this suspect to trial. I'd even be fine if the judge set an outrageously high bail/bond--at least it was a judge who made that decision. What I'm NOT ok with is to give the executive branch so much power that that can pick you, Lee, Stacato, or my SO off the streets tomorrow and brand them with the moniker of "suspected terrorist" and we could never hear from again. I just can't believe this is the vision of America that some of you are agreeing to.

 

When that happens, it'll be too late to say: oh, wait a minute, my wife is not a terrorist. There's been some mistake. TOO LATE THEN. You have no recourse to appeal in any court system. Then what will you do?

[jemmyell]

Here is an article from Human Rights Watch about less than 50% of the Guantanamo Detainees not even being accused of having ever fought in Afghanistan. They were accused of being Taliban affiliated by Pakistanis who were PAID A BOUNTY for doing so.

 

In the meantime, here's the score: the U.S. got Guantanamo, the Pakistanis got paid and Al Qaeda and the Taliban mostly got away. Michael Scheuer, the former head of the CIA's Bin Laden unit, recently told the National Journal that less than 10% of Guantanamo prisoners are high-value Al Qaeda operatives with any knowledge of terrorism. Of those turned over by Pakistan, he said: "We absolutely got the wrong people."

 

http://hrw.org/english/docs/2006/03/16/usdom13015.htm

 

Say the Bush Administartion sends the FBI to your neighborhood, asks you if you know of any 'terrorists' that they can take away. The are offering $10,000 a head. There is this neighbor who NEVER mows his lawn and actually gave YOU the finger once, AND his wife is this foreign lady....

 

Bingo, instant terrorist.

 

-James

Edited November 18, 2006 by jemmyell (see edit history)

[Trigg]

We are talking about 'suspected terrorists'. They aren't terrorists until a judge/jury says they are. Still, our court system allows for the potential danger a person may be and the courts can, and do, often set bonds so high, or allow no bonds, in order to protect society and all they need is EVIDENCE, not suspicions!.

 

 

What court system? You're being much too generous here Trigg. The reason why I'm so adamantly against this new law is that they completely want to hide these "prisoners of war" from the normal criminal court system and place them under god knows what system. I'd be more than ok if some impartial judge had a look and said there's enough evidence to bring this suspect to trial. I'd even be fine if the judge set an outrageously high bail/bond--at least it was a judge who made that decision. What I'm NOT ok with is to give the executive branch so much power that that can pick you, Lee, Stacato, or my SO off the streets tomorrow and brand them with the moniker of "suspected terrorist" and we could never hear from again. I just can't believe this is the vision of America that some of you are agreeing to.

 

When that happens, it'll be too late to say: oh, wait a minute, my wife is not a terrorist. There's been some mistake. TOO LATE THEN. You have no recourse to appeal in any court system. Then what will you do?

You misunderstood, I was referring to ways this can be handled through our 'normal' justice system using due process. Possibly the same results but at least an opportunity for an evidence based incarceration. Too many of us gave parts of our bodies and our blood and even bits of our souls in order to guarantee "liberty and justice for all" to let thinking like this dominate our country. Protect freedom-YES, but not at the cost of freedom itself!!

Edited November 18, 2006 by Trigg (see edit history)

[stacato]

We are talking about 'suspected terrorists'. They aren't terrorists until a judge/jury says they are. Still, our court system allows for the potential danger a person may be and the courts can, and do, often set bonds so high, or allow no bonds, in order to protect society and all they need is EVIDENCE, not suspicions!.

 

 

What court system? You're being much too generous here Trigg. The reason why I'm so adamantly against this new law is that they completely want to hide these "prisoners of war" from the normal criminal court system and place them under god knows what system. I'd be more than ok if some impartial judge had a look and said there's enough evidence to bring this suspect to trial. I'd even be fine if the judge set an outrageously high bail/bond--at least it was a judge who made that decision. What I'm NOT ok with is to give the executive branch so much power that that can pick you, Lee, Stacato, or my SO off the streets tomorrow and brand them with the moniker of "suspected terrorist" and we could never hear from again. I just can't believe this is the vision of America that some of you are agreeing to.

 

When that happens, it'll be too late to say: oh, wait a minute, my wife is not a terrorist. There's been some mistake. TOO LATE THEN. You have no recourse to appeal in any court system. Then what will you do?

 

Why are you insisting on taking this to the general population? Show me one case that an innocent American citizen was held indefinitely for terrorism. This is not Argentina of the late 70's. This is America after 9/11/01, fighting (Yes fighting) an outside enemy. These are not criminals. These are TERRORISTS, and should be treated as such. Do you believe that 9/11 was a criminal act? Do you think it might happen again? do you want to do everything in your power to prevent it from happening again?

 

These type of actions did not exist prior to 9/11. They forced it on us, so why blame ourselves? They brought it upon themselves. I can't believe that some are always looking at what we are doing wrong instead at being angry at the source. I also believe that a lot of it comes from "Bush hating" more then anything else. (OUR COUNTRY WAS ATTACKED IN THE WORST WAY SINCE PEARL HARBOR AND MAYBE WORSE AND YOU CARE ABOUT THEIR CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS?? How about caring about your own people's safety? (this includes, but is not limited to your family, SO, kids, parents etc..)

 

I would like to add that difference of opinions is ok. As long as the conversation doesn't get personal. Different points of view make for interesting discussion and I hope everyone can keep it that way , as we did so far.

[warpedbored]

Well gee since our safety is at stake lets do away with a few other constiutional rights. Terrrorists have guns so lets make guns illegal. Since the majority of terrorists are Muslim lets do away with freedom of religion and make Islam ilegal and hey since you know some terrorists maybe we should do away with search warrants or warrants for arrest, oops they are already doing that one. The point is how many constitutional rights are we going to do away with to supposedly make the American public safe? Some prices for safety are too high.

[Danax]

Even the liberal Dutch are banning traditional muslim dress in the name of security.

 

And the more we all just go along with it, thinking it won't affect us, the closer we get to waking up one day and wondering what the heck happened to our freedom.

[C4Racer]

[Why are you insisting on taking this to the general population? Show me one case that an innocent American citizen was held indefinitely for terrorism. This is not Argentina of the late 70's. This is America after 9/11/01, fighting (Yes fighting) an outside enemy. These are not criminals. These are TERRORISTS, and should be treated as such. Do you believe that 9/11 was a criminal act? Do you think it might happen again? do you want to do everything in your power to prevent it from happening again?

 

 

The problem is many people buy this incredibly naive way of thinking that it will be only used against those who fight against us. It will also be used against those who live amongst us, have done nothing wrong or even you if they decide they don't like the way you speak. What better way to silence you then brand you a suspected terrorist. You have no recourse. Case closed -- end of you.

 

Here is a story to support this thinking: (sorry for the reference to politics in the links)

 

http://archives.cnn.com/2002/ALLPOLITICS/1...imep.muslim.tm/

 

One reason he is suspected was he flew to China!! Hm, I wonder how many of us are on the watch list. makes you wonder. Smile next time you fly to China.

[david_dawei]

I ran across this quote by Thomas Jefferson and I thought it might be appropriate on this thread:

 

Those who desire to give up Freedom in order to gain Security, will not have, nor do they deserve, either one.

 

Thomas Jefferson

speaking of quotes... This topic made me think of Donne's "For whom the bell tolls" (which Hemingway made famous as a book).

 

Here's the entire passage:

"No man is an island, entire of itself; every man is a piece of the continent, a part of the main. If a clod be washed away by the sea, Europe is the less, as well as if a promontory were, as well as if a manor of thy friend's or of thine own were: any man's death diminishes me, because I am involved in mankind, and therefore never send to know for whom the bells tolls; it tolls for thee." -- John Donne

 

Basically the passage shows a similar construction: Any ONE person is simply a part of the whole, even death comes to all equally... As well, Laws get applied to ALL equally.. and that's the rub of this one that many of us have an issue with; we know our we (or our SOs) are not terrorist, but either of us can fall into this lethal law...

 

Searching for the full passage, I found this interesting article.. with comments from G.W., no not the president.. well, yes the president.. but the first one...

 

 

For Whom the Bell Tolls

Edited November 18, 2006 by DavidZixuan (see edit history)

[david_dawei]

I'd like someone to dig out that saying by a German in WW2. Something about they came for them, but I didn't worry...They came for the other, but I didn't worry...then they came for me and no one was left.

 

http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Martin_Niem%C3%B6ller

 

A few variations in the link.. this the more famous...

 

First they came for the Jews

and I did not speak out

because I was not a Jew.

Then they came for the Communists

and I did not speak out

because I was not a Communist.

Then they came for the trade unionists

and I did not speak out

because I was not a trade unionist.

Then they came for me

and there was no one left

to speak out for me.

Edited November 18, 2006 by DavidZixuan (see edit history)

[C4Racer]

I'd like someone to dig out that saying by a German in WW2. Something about they came for them, but I didn't worry...They came for the other, but I didn't worry...then they came for me and no one was left.

http://www.ddaymuseum.org/pdf/edu_lp_Perso...sson%20Plan.pdf

 

The quote is by Pastor Martin Niemoller, 1945, You'll find it at the top of the second page.

 

This article also talks about responsibilty of crimes of WWII by being passive. Allowing Nazis to make laws, supporting the law because it did not apply to them and then doing nothing basically hiding behind the law. Crimes against humanity are just that crimes not matter how just the cause or who performs them.

 

I found to to be very interesting. This kind of thinking is exactly why we must fight against vague laws that allow people to be wisked away to prison without representation. It is what our fathers fought and died for. The best way to honor them is continue the fight.

Edited November 18, 2006 by C4Racer (see edit history)

[Rakkasan]

I keep seeing the same lines in this thread over and over....Criminal Courts or Normal Criminal Court System. These are NOT criminals, these are terrorists who are suspected of being involved in some manner of plotting terrorist activities. These ARE prisoners of war. The U.S. / Bush administration is treating them far better than the terrorists treat our soldiers when captured. Most of those in Gitmo will not reveal their real names and therefore can and will be held until such time as their true identity can be determined and proper investigations performed. You may not agree with the Bush administration or the way the war in Iraq is being fought, but there have been NO TERRORIST ATTACKS ON U.S. SOIL since Bush started detaining those with suspected ties to terrorist organizations.

 

Gitmo has had Red Cross inspections and there are no abuse issues to speak of, other than those perpertrated by the detainees on U.S. military personel.

 

I think that to detain thoese suspected of terrorist involvement is acceptable. Personally, I think all Islamic immigrants in the U.S. should be deported immediately and let them all apply for re-entry into the U.S. and be subjected to an intense background check and 2 year wait before being able to maybe return. And before anyone rips me about how many good Muslims there are and how this would be unfair to them, let me say "I don't care". This is our country and we should be able to do whatever is necessary to protect ourselves, fair or not. Killing innocent men, women and children through acts of terror is not fair either, but it happens regardless of what we think. Deport them all regardless of what they think.

 

I have said this before, I would love for this war to be over, but I know it will never end, ever. While our troops are in Iraq, that country has become a magnet for every nutcase Islamic terrorist in search of 72 virgins. As much as I would love for our troops to come home, and I have many friends with children serving in Iraq, I know that as long as we have a military presence in Iraq, the terrorists will stay away from U.S. soil.

 

One thing that must be understood about these people is that they have absolutely no respect for human life. If they are willing to kill each other in order to carry on a war that has been raging in their country for hundreds of years. Do you really think they will ever care about us? Their whole religious belief is one of "believe as I do or die". Regardless of whether you are Muslim or not, everything you do that is not in compliance with the teachings of the Koran is considered as an insult to Allah and therefore must be punished. You cannot reason with someone with this kind of mindset. Ship them all home and let them re-apply for re-entry in the U.S.

 

As an aside I will say that I do not believe that the true teachings of the Koran is to kill all non-believers. This is proven by the terrorists who when on camera cover their faces to avoid being identified. The founding fathers of our country not only did not hide their faces when fighting for something they truly believed in, but signed their names and pledged their lives and fortunes in pursuit of a just cause.

 

NUFF SAID!!!