NationStates Jolt Archive

There's this guy being held by the US government, name of Ali Saleh Kahlah al-Marri, is much the same position as Jose Padilla was until the Bush Justice department decided to end-run the Constitution and finally charge him rather than let the Supreme Court get hold of their bullshit "enemy combatant" rule.

Here's the story. (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/05/08/AR2006050801469.html)
A federal magistrate judge yesterday recommended rejecting a petition by the sole remaining enemy combatant being held on U.S. soil, finding that Ali Saleh Kahlah al-Marri had not offered persuasive evidence rebutting the government's allegations against him.

Marri, a Qatari national, has been held in a military brig in South Carolina since being accused in June 2003 of being an al-Qaeda "sleeper" agent sent to the United States to mount attacks after the Sept. 11, 2001, jetliner hijackings. Marri has filed a petition in federal court alleging that he is being held unlawfully and deprived of rights of due process.

But in a sharply worded 16-page report, Magistrate Judge Robert C. Carr of the U.S. District Court of South Carolina upbraided Marri for declining to address detailed allegations contained in a declassified government report outlining his alleged links to al-Qaeda.

"The petitioner's refusal . . . is either a sophomoric approach to a serious issue, or worse, an attempt to subvert the judicial process and flout due process," Carr wrote. "The petitioner has squandered his opportunity to be heard by purposely not participating in a meaningful way."

Although Carr's recommendation is not binding -- a higher-ranking judge will issue a final ruling -- it counts as a significant victory for the government, which had opposed releasing details of the allegations against Marri.

Marri, an immigrant who enrolled at Bradley University in Peoria, Ill., remains the last person in the United States designated an enemy combatant. A second combatant, Yaser Esam Hamdi, has been deported to Saudi Arabia, while a third, U.S. citizen Jose Padilla, has had his case transferred to a criminal court.
I quoted the whole article because I didn't want to be accused of selectively quoting and it was short anyway, but look at that bolded part again. What the fuck? What happened to "innocent until proven guilty?" What happened to the necessity of the government proving its case? What happened to the ability of a defendant to not put on a defense if the prosecution didn't do its damn job?

What the fuck has happened to my goddamn country that this isn't on the front page and people aren't outraged about it?

I might have overlooked something but it seems like this guy isnt an American.

And it also seems like he is probably a terrorist.

Therefore,

1. Who the hell cares if he doesnt have American rights...hes not an American.

2. Hes probably a terrorist sun of a bitch.

3. His name is Ali Saleh Kahlah al-Marri which confirms 2.

I might have overlooked something but it seems like this guy isnt an American.

And it also seems like he is probably a terrorist.

Therefore,

1. Who the hell cares if he doesnt have American rights...hes not an American.

2. Hes probably a terrorist sun of a bitch.

3. His name is Ali Saleh Kahlah al-Marri which confirms 2.
You really are 14. :rolleyes:

You really are 14. :rolleyes:

First of all...I'm not 14, so no I'm really NOT 14.

Second of all, I made a legit post, if you want to reply to it accordingly, fine.

If not, dont drop to false personal insults...over the internet.

Jesus, I could say the same about your age....:rolleyes:

You really are 14. :rolleyes:
He is actually quite mature for his age (which incidentally, as he noted out, is not 14).

I might have overlooked something but it seems like this guy isnt an American.

And it also seems like he is probably a terrorist.

Therefore,

1. Who the hell cares if he doesnt have American rights...hes not an American.

2. Hes probably a terrorist sun of a bitch.

3. His name is Ali Saleh Kahlah al-Marri which confirms 2.


1. The idea behind the US is that they're not "American" rights, they're human rights that all people have as a consequence of being human. Violating someone's basic human rights should not be an option for our government, no matter where they're from.

*retracted age comments*

First of all...I'm not 14, so now I'm really NOT 14.

Second of all, I made a legit post, if you want to reply to it accordingly, fine.

If not, dont drop to false personal insults...over the internet.

Jesus, I could say the same about your age....:rolleyes:
Make a legit post and I'll make a legit reply. People arrested in the US are subject to US law and covered by US protections. Or haven't you gotten to Civics yet in your high school education?

And oh yeah--that crack about having a muslim name confirming you're a terrorist? That's just fucking stupid, and there are few other ways to describe that. I had a student last term named Shahnaz Islam--think she was strapping on a bomb belt before she came to class? Hmmm?

1. The idea behind the US is that they're not "American" rights, they're human rights that all people have as a consequence of being human. Violating someone's basic human rights should not be an option for our government, no matter where they're from.

*retracted age comments*

Yes, but if they are linked to Al Queda...I dont think they deserve to be treated with equal rights....they have a desire to murder.

Also, I dont know if I'd actually consider myself a zealot...that may be a little far.

Also, number three was a joke...It wasnt serious.

Number two, well I do beleive he was probably a terrorist as thats what hes convicted of and thats what everyone beleives him to be.

Note, I did say probably a terrorist.

So are you saying that

1. An American resident (but not American citizen) does not have the right to speech, attorney, etc?

2. An American citizen in another country is expected to have freedom of speech, right to an attorney even if he or she was in North Korea or Iran?

Make a legit post and I'll make a legit reply. People arrested in the US are subject to US law and covered by US protections. Or haven't you gotten to Civics yet in your high school education?

And oh yeah--that crack about having a muslim name confirming you're a terrorist? That's just fucking stupid, and there are few other ways to describe that. I had a student last term named Shahnaz Islam--think she was strapping on a bomb belt before she came to class? Hmmm?

Obviously, they're not. :p

If you really didnt like my post that much then why did you have to comment on it, no, not comment, make personal insults.

Oh wahhh...it was a joke, relax...I dont think that all Muslims are terrorist..There is no one, regardless of beleifs, that actually thinks that.

Yes, but if they are linked to Al Queda...I dont think they deserve to be treated with equal rights....they have a desire to murder.

Also, I dont know if I'd actually consider myself a zealot...that may be a little far.

Also, number three was a joke...It wasnt serious.

Number two, well I do beleive he was probably a terrorist as thats what hes convicted of and thats what everyone beleives him to be.

Note, I did say probably a terrorist.

Has he actually been convicted of anything? From what I can tell he is just "accused" at this point. Since no wrongdoing on his part has yet been proven in a court of law he's not a criminal, and as such there is no legitimate reason to curtail his basic human rights. You may believe he is guilty, I may, everyone may, but it's never been proven in a court of law.

If we don't stick to our principles what do we have left? The US is based on these principles and without them we're less than nothing.

I might have overlooked something but it seems like this guy isnt an American.

And it also seems like he is probably a terrorist.

Therefore,

1. Who the hell cares if he doesnt have American rights...hes not an American.
Ignoring the whole do Constitutional rights apply to nationals of other coutries for a moment, let us consider this:

He is being held as an enemy combatant. The US, through a number of treaties, cannot legally do this to another country's citizens. If he is a POW, he should be treated as such. If he is guilty of a crime, he can be tried in US courts and serve time in US jails before being deported. If he is NOT charged, he can still be deported. However, the US has not done so. In other words, the US is holding a citizen of another country for no reason except we-say-so.

Imagine if you will, if China held a US citizen in a jail without contact with the US Embassay (which it and the US are supposed to do), without access to Chinese courts, and without actually charging the citzen in question.

Tell me honestly, would you then be posting here saying how Adam Johnson is obviously, as you put it, "a terrorist sun of a bitch" and does not deserve the protections (such as they are) of the Chinese legal system?

2. Hes probably a terrorist sun of a bitch.

3. His name is Ali Saleh Kahlah al-Marri which confirms 2.
:rolleyes: Nice to see the rule of law, evidence, and so on is so firmly planted in your mind. What's YOUR name? I bet I can have all sorts of fun with yours.

After all, some of the best killers had such ordnary sounding, western names.

Yes, but if they are linked to Al Queda...I dont think they deserve to be treated with equal rights....they have a desire to murder.

Also, I dont know if I'd actually consider myself a zealot...that may be a little far.

Also, number three was a joke...It wasnt serious.

Number two, well I do beleive he was probably a terrorist as thats what hes convicted of and thats what everyone beleives him to be.

Note, I did say probably a terrorist. Are you thick? He hasn't been convicted of anything!
He's been accused is all. If we don't extend equal protection under the law to all, American values and justice is a joke. Selecting certain people and saying they don't deserve "equal rights" as you did is not just an oxymoron, it suggests facist values not the democratic values of our country.

You seem to suggest that we should fight what we fear by becoming it.

Ignoring the whole do Constitutional rights apply to nationals of other coutries for a moment, let us consider this:

He is being held as an enemy combatant. The US, through a number of treaties, cannot legally do this to another country's citizens. If he is a POW, he should be treated as such. If he is guilty of a crime, he can be tried in US courts and serve time in US jails before being deported. If he is NOT charged, he can still be deported. However, the US has not done so. In other words, the US is holding a citizen of another country for no reason except we-say-so.

OK, and we are going to put him on trial.....I dont see what the problem is...We are going to try him, we are not just holding him because we say so. We have reason to beleive he is a terrorist.



:rolleyes: Nice to see the rule of law, evidence, and so on is so firmly planted in your mind. What's YOUR name? I bet I can have all sorts of fun with yours.[/QUOTE]

Oh, God..number 3 was a joke. Number 2 wasnt, but 3 was.

Anyway, I'm obviously not going to hand out my name...but if you'd like, you can TG me and I can tell you it there, and there you can have all the fun you want with it....In fact, it would be amusing.

You seem to suggest that we should fight what we fear by becoming it.And he's not alone, sadly enough.

So are you saying that

1. An American resident (but not American citizen) does not have the right to speech, attorney, etc?

2. An American citizen in another country is expected to have freedom of speech, right to an attorney even if he or she was in North Korea or Iran?

1) Yes, actually, they are. Please read United States v. Verdugo-Urquidez

2) The laws of North Korea and Iran are not the laws of the United States of America. What rights, if any people have there are not in any way indicative of the laws of America.

Are you thick? He hasn't been convicted of anything!
He's been accused is all. If we don't extend equal protection under the law to all, American values and justice is a joke. Selecting certain people and saying they don't deserve "equal rights" as you did is not just an oxymoron, it suggests facist values not the democratic values of our country.

You seem to suggest that we should fight what we fear by becoming it.

More and more, doing what may not seem right at the time, to perserve what is right, will eventually be seen to be what was right in the long run.

You seem to suggest that we should fight what we fear by becoming it.

we should not fear fascist views, we should just dislike them, not hate, for hate leads to bad things, just dislike...fear leads to problems, hate leads to problems, thus we must simply dislike the views...

well, thats my random crap for the day...

OK, and we are going to put him on trial.....I dont see what the problem is...We are going to try him, we are not just holding him because we say so. We have reason to beleive he is a terrorist.

You need to go back and look. Enemy combatant status means that the President has said he's a bad guy and must be detained. That's it. There is no trial (that's what he's asking for). There has been no presentation of evidence. This is just the government's say so. HE. HAS. NOT. BEEN. CHARGED. WITH. ANYTHING!

Reason to believe, BTW, is not beyond a resonable doubt, which is the protection you enjoy should you be brought into court.

OK, and we are going to put him on trial.....I dont see what the problem is...We are going to try him, we are not just holding him because we say so. We have reason to beleive he is a terrorist.

The problem is, as many have noted, is that the judge in this instance has effectivly stated that this individual has failed to rebut the government's claims. However, in this country, it is not the job of the individual to rebut the claims of the government, it is the job of the government to substantiate their own claims.

It is not the role of the accused to prove their innocence, it is the job of the government to prove their guilt. The government can not under the 5th amendment, hold someone until they are able to prove their innocence. Which is exactly what they've been doing. And the fact that he may get a trial is irrelevant, it's the fact that he's already been held without a trial, or charges, but merely suspicion.

You need to go back and look. Enemy combatant status means that the President has said he's a bad guy and must be detained. That's it. There is no trial (that's what he's asking for). There has been no presentation of evidence. This is just the government's say so. HE. HAS. NOT. BEEN. CHARGED. WITH. ANYTHING!

Reason to believe, BTW, is not beyond a resonable doubt, which is the protection you enjoy should you be brought into court.

Ok, so what are you proposing we do?

I'm not being sarcastic, I'm all ears.

I may seem like an asshole (granted, I sorta am), but the main thing I get out of NS it learning, and I see this as an opportunity to learn.

The problem is, as many have noted, is that the judge in this instance has effectivly stated that this individual has failed to rebut the government's claims. However, in this country, it is not the job of the individual to rebut the claims of the government, it is the job of the government to substantiate their own claims.

It is not the role of the accused to prove their innocence, it is the job of the government to prove their guilt. The government can not under the 5th amendment, hold someone until they are able to prove their innocence. Which is exactly what they've been doing. And the fact that he may get a trial is irrelevant, it's the fact that he's already been held without a trial, or charges, but merely suspicion.

Yes, but what I am saying is that these are laws for people of our country, not foreign terrorists who infiltrate our system.

More and more, doing what may not seem right at the time, to perserve what is right, will eventually be seen to be what was right in the long run.
Yes, because after all, all those Japanese-Americans we rounded up and shipped to consentration camps in WWII were all spies on the pay of the Emperor of Japan.

The fact that the most highly decorated unit of WWII was made up of Japanese-Americans who couldn't even touch their family through the barbed wire when they came home was a fluke. We were right!

More and more, doing what may not seem right at the time, to perserve what is right, will eventually be seen to be what was right in the long run.
Yeah... Riiiiiight...

Sounds like a quote by Hitler or Stalin....

Ok, so what are you proposing we do?

I'm not being sarcastic, I'm all ears.

I may seem like an asshole (granted, I sorta am), but the main thing I get out of NS it learning, and I see this as an opportunity to learn.

Follow the requirements of the constitution.

Have the government put him on trial, and present their evidence. Let him do the same. Let a jury decide if the government has adequatly proved beyond all reasonable doubt that he did what they claim he did. Or, should they fail in that, let him go.

The same for every other crime.

Yes, but what I am saying is that these are laws for people of our country, not foreign terrorists who infiltrate our system.

I've said it before, however you ignored it.

United States v. Verdugo-Urquidez

Yeah... Riiiiiight...

Sounds like a quote by Hitler or Stalin....
They may have been tyrants, but incompetent rulers they were not.

Ok, so what are you proposing we do?

I'm not being sarcastic, I'm all ears.

I may seem like an asshole (granted, I sorta am), but the main thing I get out of NS it learning, and I see this as an opportunity to learn.
Do? We do what we have always done, we treat everyone equally under the law.

If the government has knowledge, let them bring him to court and convict him. If he is persona non gratta, let him be deported. Holding a man in legal limbo without cause for redress is one of the causes we were rebelling against in the first place way back in the 1770's.

1. The idea behind the US is that they're not "American" rights, they're human rights that all people have as a consequence of being human.
The Constitution and Bill of Rights, being contracts between the US people and their government, don't apply to "damn ferners" on their own. However, there's probably laws/treaties that apply to this guys treatment in their stead, so the previous sentence was pedantic and meaningless.

And, fifth amendment? What Fifth Amendment? Its quite simple, Nazz, you just have to remember that we're using the Republican decimal system now. In Repsadecimal, one counts to ten like so: 2, 3, 7, 10.
The transition tends to confuse people, so don't feel to embarrased, just keep this in mind.

They may have been tyrants, but incompetent rulers they were not.Depends on what criteria you use to judge rulers.

I personally don't think viciuosly keeping themselves ruling while guiding their country down a path of distruction is a definition of competence I prefer.

Yeah... Riiiiiight...

Sounds like a quote by Hitler or Stalin....

It's not.

I actually just made it up and rather like the sound of it.

The Constitution and Bill of Rights, being contracts between the US people and their government, don't apply to "damn ferners" on their own. However, there's probably laws/treaties that apply to this guys treatment in their stead, so the previous sentence was pedantic and meaningless.


United States v. Verdugo-Urquidez

Quoting:


The Fourth Amendment phrase "the people" seems to be a term of art used in select parts of the Constitution and contrasts with the words "person" and "accused" used in Articles of the Fifth and Sixth Amendments regulating criminal procedures. This suggests that "the people" [494 U.S. 259, 260] refers to a class of persons who are part of a national community or who have otherwise developed sufficient connection with this country to be considered part of that community

This has been held to constitute legal aliens as well, as part of those who have developed "sufficient connection"

Follow the requirements of the constitution.

Have the government put him on trial, and present their evidence. Let him do the same. Let a jury decide if the government has adequatly proved beyond all reasonable doubt that he did what they claim he did. Or, should they fail in that, let him go.

The same for every other crime.

Do? We do what we have always done, we treat everyone equally under the law.

If the government has knowledge, let them bring him to court and convict him. If he is persona non gratta, let him be deported. Holding a man in legal limbo without cause for redress is one of the causes we were rebelling against in the first place way back in the 1770's.

Ok, I can agree to all this.

Yes, because after all, all those Japanese-Americans we rounded up and shipped to consentration camps in WWII were all spies on the pay of the Emperor of Japan.

The fact that the most highly decorated unit of WWII was made up of Japanese-Americans who couldn't even touch their family through the barbed wire when they came home was a fluke. We were right!

First of all, they werent concentration camps.

Second of all....I dont see what this has to do with somthing that happend around 60 years ago, at all.

Depends on what criteria you use to judge rulers.

I personally don't think viciuosly keeping themselves ruling while guiding their country down a path of distruction is a definition of competence I prefer.
It depends on whether or not you look at it from the point of view of their own personal benefit, or that of the nation. In the latter case, they knew how to get the job done and done well.

It's not.

I actually just made it up and rather like the sound of it.
I didn't think it actually was, kid.

I was just trying to drive home the point that it is exactly the kind of justification that tyrants have used to oppress throughout history.

You really do have facist leanings don't you...?

They may have been tyrants, but incompetent rulers they were not.

Stalin was incompetent. By rule do you mean:

1. To stay in power?
2. Actually run the country?

Fear is not a way to rule. See the Art of War and Conficius for reference.

First of all, they werent concentration camps.



Concentration camp defined:

A camp where civilians, enemy aliens, political prisoners, and sometimes prisoners of war are detained and confined.

Origin of the word suggests that it is a location where a particular group of people are concentrated.

So how would YOU define it? People tend to view the word "concentration camp" in the Nazi WWII view, which they certainly were. However locations like Auchwitz might better be defined as death camps.

And while the Japanese internment camps were not death camps like the Nazi ones, they were most certainly concentration camps in the "proper" definition of the word.

I might have overlooked something but it seems like this guy isnt an American.

And it also seems like he is probably a terrorist.

Therefore,

1. Who the hell cares if he doesnt have American rights...hes not an American.

2. Hes probably a terrorist sun of a bitch.

3. His name is Ali Saleh Kahlah al-Marri which confirms 2.

#1 is all I care about. If you are an enemy combatant, you have abandoned your country and don't deserve the rights you earned by birth.

Get it over with an interrogate him, then have a boating accident.

Stalin was incompetent. By rule do you mean:

1. To stay in power?
2. Actually run the country?

Fear is not a way to rule. See the Art of War and Conficius for reference.
Staying in power and benefitting himself. What else are rulers made for?

And, fifth amendment? What Fifth Amendment? Its quite simple, Nazz, you just have to remember that we're using the Republican decimal system now. In Repsadecimal, one counts to ten like so: 2, 3, 7, 10.
The transition tends to confuse people, so don't feel to embarrased, just keep this in mind.I've never been good with the new math. :D

I didn't think it actually was, kid.

I was just trying to drive home the point that it is exactly the kind of justification that tyrants have used to oppress throughout history.

You really do have facist leanings don't you...?

We are not oppressing, we are fighting off an enemy from within.

Yes, my fascist leanings come from reading all the American Nazi that my Jewish family prescribes to. :p

First of all, they werent concentration camps.

Second of all....I dont see what this has to do with somthing that happend around 60 years ago, at all.

They were concentration camps.

concentration camp
n.
A camp where civilians, enemy aliens, political prisoners, and sometimes prisoners of war are detained and confined, typically under harsh conditions.

http://www.answers.com/topic/concentration-camp

And it has everything to do. You haven't learned that we learn the future by looking at the past, since history repeats itself and goes through cycles as people forget what has happened and make the same mistakes.

First of all, they werent concentration camps.
Yes, they were. They may have been called relocation centers, but consentration camp is what they were.

Second of all....I dont see what this has to do with somthing that happend around 60 years ago, at all.
You're the poster child for the old saying of those who fail to learn history are doomed to repeat it, aren't you?

You state that removing someone's rights, locking them away (on the basis of ethnicty) and holding them without charge is a-ok. And that the government shall be proven right.

That's what they said 60 years ago when the US Government ordered 12,000 people of Japanese decent to the middle of nowhere and held them for the duration of the war. They felt they were right.

President Regan, in the 80's, finally admited we were wrong.

Hopefully we'll act a bit quicker this time.

#1 is all I care about. If you are an enemy combatant, you have abandoned your country and don't deserve the rights you earned by birth.

Get it over with an interrogate him, then have a boating accident.

If the government has enough evidence to truly have reason to believe he is a terrorist, then let them put him on trial, present their evidence, and secure a conviction.

If they do NOT have enough evidence to prove he is a terrorist in a court of law, then how could they, you, or any of us, be sure that he is?

In other words, if the government has enough to prove it, let them prove it in a court of law. If they can't prove it, how do they know he is?

Staying in power and benefitting himself. What else are rulers made for?

It is a greater benefit to yourself to benefit the country you rule ;)

It is a greater benefit to yourself to benefit the country you rule ;)
A very noble standpoint, one with which I sympathise. However, in the world of crazy dictators, Stalin and Hitler excelled at their profession.

We are not oppressing, we are fighting off an enemy from within.

Yes, my fascist leanings come from reading all the American Nazi that my Jewish family prescribes to. :p

If the government can prove he is an enemy, let them prove it in a court of law.

If the government can not prove it, how can we be sure he is?

Yes, they were. They may have been called relocation centers, but consentration camp is what they were.


You're the poster child for the old saying of those who fail to learn history are doomed to repeat it, aren't you?

You state that removing someone's rights, locking them away (on the basis of ethnicty) and holding them without charge is a-ok. And that the government shall be proven right.

That's what they said 60 years ago when the US Government ordered 12,000 people of Japanese decent to the middle of nowhere and held them for the duration of the war. They felt they were right.

President Regan, in the 80's, finally admited we were wrong.

Hopefully we'll act a bit quicker this time.

I already said I agreed with you guys on putting him on trial.

No need to bring it up to me again.

I'm not gonna re-agree.

A very noble standpoint, one with which I sympathise. However, in the world of crazy dictators, Stalin and Hitler excelled at their profession.

But there's a difference. The point of view I subscribe to actually works and prolongs your own life and rule. If you invade a country and make the people miserable, you'll be kicked out. If you improve their lives, they will be grateful and keep you there.

If the government can prove he is an enemy, let them prove it in a court of law.

Agreed, again, already.

But there's a difference. The point of view I subscribe to actually works and prolongs your own life and rule. If you invade a country and make the people miserable, you'll be kicked out. If you improve their lives, they will be grateful and keep you there.
Any benevolent and wise ruler knows this. That is why I differentiate between the type of ruler Hitler and Stalin were and the ideal type of ruler. They may fail to live up to the ideal, but they were excellent at opressing and coercing others to their will.

Agreed, again, already.

If the constitution is held to be the fundamental human rights, and his treatment would be in violation of those fundamental rights were he arrested for murder, rape, robbery, theft, burglary, assault, or ANYTHING ELSE but being an "enemy combatant" is that oppression?

You stated "[w]e are not oppressing", so is holding a person, without the right of an attorney, a trial, or any opportunity to force the government to plead and prove their case just as they would have to if he were a murderer, a thief, or a rapist, oppression, or is it not?

If the constitution is held to be the fundamental human rights, and his treatment would be in violation of those fundamental rights were he arrested for murder, rape, robbery, theft, burglary, assault, or ANYTHING ELSE but being an "enemy combatant" is that oppression?

Re-state please.

Re-state please.

I have edited, but to state again. You said "We are not oppressing". If the government believed he committed murder, this would not be allowed. If the government believed he committed rape, this would not be allowed. If the government believed he had committed robbery, this would not be allowed.

Does the fact that he is being held without a lawyer, without a trial, without a chance to force the government to prove their case, oppression?

I have edited, but to state again. You said "We are not oppressing". If the government believed he committed murder, this would not be allowed. If the government believed he committed rape, this would not be allowed. If the government believed he had committed robbery, this would not be allowed.

Does the fact that he is being held without a lawyer, without a trial, without a chance to force the government to prove their case, oppression?

I woudnt call it oppression.

But I will tell the government to give him a trial so they can throw that bastard in jail.

I might have overlooked something but it seems like this guy isnt an American.

And it also seems like he is probably a terrorist.

Therefore,

1. Who the hell cares if he doesnt have American rights...hes not an American.

2. Hes probably a terrorist sun of a bitch.

3. His name is Ali Saleh Kahlah al-Marri which confirms 2.


lol...i am not as harsh as you,yet i am amused by everyone that is so concerned about our constitutional rights...but always over look the the second amendment.
i kinda like all of the bill of rights,i dont pick and choose which one is politically correct or exspediant for my party.

some seem to like some over others...myself..i am a big 1 st fan,but then again i like the second,oh shoot...i like em all.

thats why i hate bush,he picks and chooses as bad as the liberals do...they all matter to me.

Any benevolent and wise ruler knows this. That is why I differentiate between the type of ruler Hitler and Stalin were and the ideal type of ruler. They may fail to live up to the ideal, but they were excellent at opressing and coercing others to their will.

Ah yes, at that they were. Let us hope it never comes to this again, not even in our country, or else civil disobedience might actually be necessary.

Ah yes, at that they were. Let us hope it never comes to this again, not even in our country, or else civil disobedience might actually be necessary.
It is still that way in certain countries. Belarus has the most awesome luck of being ruled by a Soviet-style dictator.

I woudnt call it oppression.

But I will tell the government to give him a trial so they can throw that bastard in jail.

The the consitution is defined as basic human rights, and this act runs counter to those rights, then what do you call it, other than the oppression of those rights?

Or to put it more simply....are you really willing to state that it is not oppressive to hold someone for as long as you feel like it, without giving them a trial, access to a lawyer, or presenting any charges? You REALLY think that this is ok?

lol...i am not as harsh as you,yet i am amused by everyone that is so concerned about our constitutional rights...but always over look the the second amendment.
i kinda like all of the bill of rights,i dont pick and choose which one is politically correct or exspediant for my party.

some seem to like some over others...myself..i am a big 1 st fan,but then again i like the second,oh shoot...i like em all.

thats why i hate bush,he picks and chooses as bad as the liberals do...they all matter to me.

Yes...I can agree to this.

Liberals tend to pick and choose because they are a bunch of pussies and dont like guns.

The administration is picking and choosing because it doesnt want to go through all the bueracracy to get this guy put away.

Both seem wrong to me.

It is still that way in certain countries. Belarus has the most awesome luck of being ruled by a Soviet-style dictator.

Soviet-style? Elaborate please.

Soviet-style? Elaborate please.
Corruption, few political freedoms, a link to mother Russia, the usual. It's a far cry from a free country.

Corruption, few political freedoms, a link to mother Russia, the usual. It's a far cry from a free country.

Hmm, eto interezno.

I currently live in Guatemala, I know corruption. It's a terrible problem.

Liberals tend to pick and choose because they are a bunch of pussies and dont like guns.



Wow...that's....wow.

“Many that live deserve death. And some that die deserve life. Can you give it to them? Then do not be too eager to deal out death in judgement. For even the very wise cannot see all ends.”

Tolkien, love it. Would be good for a death punishment thread but kind of relates in losing part of your lifetime.

Wow...that's....wow.
You do realise that he is not being entirely serious, don't you?

You do realise that he is not being entirely serious, don't you?

From what I've seen him post before, I'm not too sure....

From what I've seen him post before, I'm not too sure....
I know him quite well, and I can assure you he means no harm.

It's sort of like when Ann Coulter makes outrageous statements just to get a reaction out of people? Yeah.

I know him quite well.

It's sort of like when Ann Coulter makes outrageous statements just to get a reaction out of people? Yeah.

Kinda like when she says liberals are pussies, heh.

Kinda like when she says liberals are pussies, heh.
I find her funny (then again, I am not an American style liberal). Overreact, and you play right into her trap.

1. The idea behind the US is that they're not "American" rights, they're human rights that all people have as a consequence of being human. Violating someone's basic human rights should not be an option for our government, no matter where they're from.

*retracted age comments*

Please read the title of this thread. It in no uncertain terms is about the 5th amendment of the Constitution of the United States. It is limited to US citizens. Not "human rights" for everyone everywhere whatever you imagine those universal human rights to be.

Please read the title of this thread. It in no uncertain terms is about the 5th amendment of the Constitution of the United States. It is limited to US citizens. Not "human rights" for everyone everywhere whatever you imagine those universal human rights to be.

Oh for the love of....

United States v. Verdugo-Urquidez

The bill of rights do not apply exclusivly to citizens.

Wow...that's....wow.

Lol...like Europa said, just relax a bit...I'm just messing.

Its hard to do online...you know, posting in text and all.

residents, whether temporary such as exchange students, or permanent, are still included. This also applies to visitors of the country, as they have a temporary tourist visa upon entering the country.

I don't know about illegal immigrants though...

I am not amirican
I am sun of a bitch O Mama they know you
I have the right to be killed without judgment
I have no right
I must accept the supremacy of this great funny people

I must be
a terrorist
An Iranian
A black bastard
A French
An Irish illegal immigrant
An Hispano Latino Communisto...

NO

I am happy
I am not american

I am:


The High Priest
- Father of your children -

*snip*
So what brand of weed have you been smoking?

Please read the title of this thread. It in no uncertain terms is about the 5th amendment of the Constitution of the United States. It is limited to US citizens. Not "human rights" for everyone everywhere whatever you imagine those universal human rights to be.Wrongo Bucko. America is a lovely place that doesn't selectively apply it's laws only to those that claim citizenship.

residents, whether temporary such as exchange students, or permanent, are still included. This also applies to visitors of the country, as they have a temporary tourist visa upon entering the country.

I don't know about illegal immigrants though...

"Marri, an immigrant who enrolled at Bradley University in Peoria, Ill"

He was a student, he had, at minimum, a student visa.

"Marri, an immigrant who enrolled at Bradley University in Peoria, Ill"

He was a student, he had, at minimum, a student visa.

Of course.

Yes, my fascist leanings come from reading all the American Nazi that my Jewish family prescribes to. :p

Oh, there are lots of Jews with fascist tendencies. The Kahanists, for one obvious example.

You don't seem culturally reactionary enough for that, though.

Yes...I can agree to this.

Liberals tend to pick and choose because they are a bunch of pussies and dont like guns.

The administration is picking and choosing because it doesnt want to go through all the bueracracy to get this guy put away.

Both seem wrong to me.

liberals tend to pick and choose feel good laws.
i would be hesitant to convict this fellow because of his name though,or because of were he is from.
we all have due procees under the law,never give that up,or you will be next if you happen to have the wrong name or opinion.
as much as i agree that as a non american,he does not deserve american rights,just like the people that were beheaded in iraq dont get american rights(but thats just a cultural difference...cough...cough)
we have to have the moral high ground,if only to show the world,aside from bush,we are decent people.
they behead people,we gnash our collective teeth to give a guy a fair trial,and i wouldnt want it any other way.
to just dissmiss this mans dignity or innocence because of his name or background makes us no different then the animals that behead people,and i am not an animal!

like the mentally imbalanced fellow they just gave life in prison too...he was at the least guilty of being imbalanced,but if we killed him like the nuts were he came from(as they surely would have)we then become no different.

i want all of my rights,guns,free speech,fair trial,etc...religion...and the only way to insure that is to NOT deny anyone any right,even if they do not deserve them.(within reason...a released felon should not be allowed to have a gun)

what seperates us from the 12th century is at the least...we at the least fake a semblence of fairness and evenhandedness.

but hillary and the self hating new york liberals can jump in a lake if they want my guns,just to assuage their guilt or make them feel safer,it makes me feel unsafe,and that aint fair.

just like i wont deny their right to their opinion or deny that "19th bomber" his right to a fair trial...i dont want my rights taken away to make you feel safer at my exspense,you got bodyguards and money,i got me.

rant off...be carefull what you wish for,it is a slippery slope when you play with our god given rights...always.

even if the fuck deserves to die,and in his country they would chop his head off in a n.y. minute....we are better then that i hope.

we are a nation of laws and i hope good people.

Oh, there are lots of Jews with fascist tendencies. The Kahanists, for one obvious example.

You don't seem culturally reactionary enough for that, though.

I just looked them up on Wiki, fascinating read.

Anyway those guys arnt fascists...just a bunch of stupid terrorists who are no better than the arabs they're fighting.

Nor am I anywhere near religious enough for that.

Plus, I'm not an Israeli...so I wouldnt be in an Israeli movement anyway.

Wrongo Bucko. America is a lovely place that doesn't selectively apply it's laws only to those that claim citizenship.

I wonder....? Doesn't it seem the slightest bit odd that non-citizens scream to have American laws and judgement applied to them when it's to their advantage and then turn around and protest, sometimes violently, when we try to apply laws that aren't to their advantage?

I just looked them up on Wiki, fascinating read.

Anyway those guys arnt fascists...just a bunch of stupid terrorists who are no better than the arabs they're fighting.

They're a bunch of bigoted ultra-nationalists who want to establish an essentially totalitarian state; they most definitely are fascistic, if in some respects closer to the Mussolini model than the Hitler one.

Nor am I anywhere near religious enough for that.

No, you don't seem to be.

Plus, I'm not an Israeli...so I wouldnt be in an Israeli movement anyway.

And most of the Jewish right-wing nationalists in this country can't be fairly described as "fascist."

I wonder....? Doesn't it seem the slightest bit odd that non-citizens scream to have American laws and judgement applied to them when it's to their advantage and then turn around and protest, sometimes violently, when we try to apply laws that aren't to their advantage?

One wonders why a supposed terrorist that the US government has such strong evidence against would so strongly fight for the opportunity to be found guilty.

And of course they try to get favorable laws applied and fight unfavorable ones. ANY defendant who wouldn't try to explore every possible legal avenue is just a stupid defendant

They're a bunch of bigoted ultra-nationalists who want to establish an essentially totalitarian state; they most definitely are fascistic, if in some respects closer to the Mussolini model than the Hitler one.

Eh, well whatever they are I would never support them.


And most of the Jewish right-wing nationalists in this country can't be fairly described as "fascist."

I guess I could be a Jewish right wing nationalist...but I am hardly fascist as I dont like the goverment nor the racial policies.

But I'm Jewish because I beleive in the religion, right wing because I'm a Conservative and nationalist cuz I'm an American nationalist.

Eh, well whatever they are I would never support them.




I guess I could be a Jewish right wing nationalist...but I am hardly fascist as I dont like the goverment nor the racial policies.

But I'm Jewish because I beleive in the religion, right wing because I'm a Conservative and nationalist cuz I'm an American nationalist.

You stated, in a somewhat offhanded and sarcastic mannor, that being Jewish prevented you from being a fascist. You were then pointed out to at least one group of jewish fascists.

Please read the title of this thread. It in no uncertain terms is about the 5th amendment of the Constitution of the United States. It is limited to US citizens. Not "human rights" for everyone everywhere whatever you imagine those universal human rights to be.

While I know that it has been stated time and time again that the US constitution does actually apply to other people besides US citizens...

...if you guys keep this up, I might just begin to say that any of the European constitutions aren't universal in the countries. Which, by chance, they happen to be. How would you feel if you could just be detained without a trial in any European state? Fact is, you can't, or there'd be an outrage about it.

You stated, in a somewhat offhanded and sarcastic mannor, that being Jewish prevented you from being a fascist. You were then pointed out to at least one group of jewish fascists.
He acknowledged this. Your point?

You stated, in a somewhat offhanded and sarcastic mannor, that being Jewish prevented you from being a fascist. You were then pointed out to at least one group of jewish fascists.

Ok....Also, I dont really think their fascists...maybe religious extreamist revolutionaries...but not fascists.

you just have to remember that we're using the Republican decimal system now. In Repsadecimal, one counts to ten like so: 2, 3, 7, 10.
Dammit Fiddleysticks, you used to be funny. Now you make baby Jesus cry.
http://www.websmileys.com/sm/sad/014.gif

I might have overlooked something but it seems like this guy isnt an American.

And it also seems like he is probably a terrorist.

Therefore,

1. Who the hell cares if he doesnt have American rights...hes not an American.

2. Hes probably a terrorist sun of a bitch.

3. His name is Ali Saleh Kahlah al-Marri which confirms 2.

I see. So you declare terrorist behavior based on name alone. You also don't care about basic rights accorded to non-Americans. Congratulations. You just made my scumbag list. *scribbles*

I now declare that Timothy McVeigh to be indicative of all Americans. Thereby, I declare that YOU Atlantian Islands, are a terrorist and should be locked away forever until you can prove that you are not. Oh yeah, and you won't get a trial either. Ever.

In fact, I also declare that should you ever leave America, you should be shot on sight because in a foreign country according to your crummy views, you would have no rights and can be treated like an animal.

They may have been tyrants, but incompetent rulers they were not.

Hitler was dumb when it came to war though. Otherwise he would have learned Napolean's lesson. Never invade Russia near or in winter.

#1 is all I care about. If you are an enemy combatant, you have abandoned your country and don't deserve the rights you earned by birth.

Get it over with an interrogate him, then have a boating accident.

Damnit, there's no proof that he's an enemy combatant. There's no proof that he even belonged to any organization. The government isn't saying diddly squat except "He's a terrorist cause we say so"

How'd you like it if American tourists started getting snatched off the streets and thrown in jail forever without legal recourse?

In fact, using your stated desire, thrown in jail for some years without trial, then executed.

You would have been at home living under Stalin.

Yes, my fascist leanings come from reading all the American Nazi that my Jewish family prescribes to. :p

A fascist can come in any shape and form. It can be German, British, American, Chinese, Jewish, whatever. All it takes is blind devotion to a militaristic state.

I see. So you declare terrorist behavior based on name alone. You also don't care about basic rights accorded to non-Americans. Congratulations. You just made my scumbag list. *scribbles*

I now declare that Timothy McVeigh to be indicative of all Americans. Thereby, I declare that YOU Atlantian Islands, are a terrorist and should be locked away forever until you can prove that you are not. Oh yeah, and you won't get a trial either. Ever.

In fact, I also declare that should you ever leave America, you should be shot on sight because in a foreign country according to your crummy views, you would have no rights and can be treated like an animal.
WooHoo!

While I know that it has been stated time and time again that the US constitution does actually apply to other people besides US citizens...

...if you guys keep this up, I might just begin to say that any of the European constitutions aren't universal in the countries. Which, by chance, they happen to be. How would you feel if you could just be detained without a trial in any European state? Fact is, you can't, or there'd be an outrage about it.and as it was also stated... only under special circumstances. Bolding mine from another trial also mentioned on this thread.
United States v. Verdugo-Urquidez
494 U.S. 259 (1990)
Docket Number: 88-1353
Abstract

Argued: November 7, 1989
Decided: February 28, 1990

Subjects: Criminal Procedure: Search and Seizure

Facts of the Case
Rene Martin Verdugo-Urquidez was a citizen and resident of Mexico. In cooperation with the Drug Enforcement Agency (DEA), Mexican police officers apprehended and transported him to the U.S. border, where he was arrested for various narcotics-related offenses. Following his arrest, a DEA agent sought authorization to search Verdugo-Urquidez's residences for evidence. The Director General of the Mexican Federal Judicial Police authorized the searches, but no search warrant from a U.S. magistrate was ever received. At trial, the district court granted Verdugo-Urquidez's motion to suppress the evidence on the ground that the search violated the Fourth Amendment to the Federal Constitution.


Question Presented
Does the Fourth Amendment apply to the search and seizure by United States agents of property that is owned by a nonresident alien and located in a foreign country?


Conclusion
No. The text of the Fourth Amendment concerns "the people," suggesting a concern with persons who are part of the national community, as contrasted with aliens without any substantial connection to the U.S. Moreover, extraterritorial aliens are not even entitled to rights under the Fifth Amendment, which speaks in the relatively more universal term of "person." And non-"fundamental" rights are not even guaranteed to inhabitants of unincorporated territories under U.S sovereign control, much less aliens. Therefore, any restrictions on searches and seizures of nonresident aliens and their foreign property must be imposed by the political branches through diplomatic understanding, treaty or legislation.

so does this person held have significant ties in the US? if so then he would be protected by the 5th amendment. if not...

This (http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=494&invol=259) Defines the term "The People" to mean Citizens of the United States and/or those aliens who have Significant ties to territories of the United States.

tho this is Legaliese, so I will admit that I might be reading the Reversals wrong.

why can't lawyers speak plain, everyman english? :headbang:

......
why can't lawyers speak plain, everyman english? :headbang:
Job Security, dear. Also, falling back on legalese, when cornered by a non-speaker, gives opponent feeling of imminent face-loss.

;)

"Shall I say it again slowly?"

There's this guy being held by the US government, name of Ali Saleh Kahlah al-Marri, is much the same position as Jose Padilla was until the Bush Justice department decided to end-run the Constitution and finally charge him rather than let the Supreme Court get hold of their bullshit "enemy combatant" rule.

Here's the story. (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/05/08/AR2006050801469.html)

I quoted the whole article because I didn't want to be accused of selectively quoting and it was short anyway, but look at that bolded part again. What the fuck? What happened to "innocent until proven guilty?" What happened to the necessity of the government proving its case? What happened to the ability of a defendant to not put on a defense if the prosecution didn't do its damn job?

What the fuck has happened to my goddamn country that this isn't on the front page and people aren't outraged about it?

I'll tell you what happened. A few people like that guy flew some airliners into a few US buildings and killed thousands of innocent people.

Maybe you need to go see the movie United 93, and relive the moment.

There's this guy being held by the US government, name of Ali Saleh Kahlah al-Marri, is much the same position as Jose Padilla was until the Bush Justice department decided to end-run the Constitution and finally charge him rather than let the Supreme Court get hold of their bullshit "enemy combatant" rule.

SNIP

I quoted the whole article because I didn't want to be accused of selectively quoting and it was short anyway, but look at that bolded part again. What the fuck? What happened to "innocent until proven guilty?" What happened to the necessity of the government proving its case? What happened to the ability of a defendant to not put on a defense if the prosecution didn't do its damn job?

What the fuck has happened to my goddamn country that this isn't on the front page and people aren't outraged about it?

You can't first denounce the system all together and THEN expect to be protected by it.

Either/or.

I'll tell you what happened. A few people like that guy flew some airliners into a few US buildings and killed thousands of innocent people.

Maybe you need to go see the movie United 93, and relive the moment.
Odd, a few people like you (White, ex-military, American) went and killed hundreds of people in Oklahoma City (Including many children) and yet I never saw people being rounded up as enemy combatants after that.

Odd, a few people like you (White, ex-military, American) went and killed hundreds of people in Oklahoma City (Including many children) and yet I never saw people being rounded up as enemy combatants after that.

Well, did they claim citienship or loyalty to some other, higher, outside-community?

I'll tell you what happened. A few people like that guy flew some airliners into a few US buildings and killed thousands of innocent people.

Maybe you need to go see the movie United 93, and relive the moment.
If the government can prove that, then put him on trial. If they can't, then let him go. This is still supposedly the US, not some fucking Soviet-era gulag, though based on your recent comments, it sounds like you'd surely like to turn the US into one.

Let me tell you something--the WTC and Pentagon attacks were bad, but looked at in scale, they weren't all that. Europe has dealt with that and worse for decades, and managed to keep an open society. The attacks certainly weren't bad enough to warrant turning the US into a police state.

Maybe you need to reread the US Constitution, read a little history of this nation, and relive a bunch of moments, instead of the one that seems to have made you wet your pants.

Odd, a few people like you (White, ex-military, American) went and killed hundreds of people in Oklahoma City (Including many children) and yet I never saw people being rounded up as enemy combatants after that.
Interesting, because the comment
Maybe you need to go see the movie United 93, and relive the moment.
sounds an awful lot like those Taliban training camps, where they relive the 'American Atrocities' over and over in an effort to build up the hatred.

If the government can prove that, then put him on trial. If they can't, then let him go. This is still supposedly the US, not some fucking Soviet-era gulag, though based on your recent comments, it sounds like you'd surely like to turn the US into one.

Let me tell you something--the WTC and Pentagon attacks were bad, but looked at in scale, they weren't all that. Europe has dealt with that and worse for decades, and managed to keep an open society. The attacks certainly weren't bad enough to warrant turning the US into a police state.

Maybe you need to reread the US Constitution, read a little history of this nation, and relive a bunch of moments, instead of the one that seems to have made you wet your pants.

Why waste fair trial on someone who doesn't recognise US jurisdiction anyway?
He opted out of the system, didn't he?
And now he can get exactly what he wants.

You can't first denounce the system all together and THEN expect to be protected by it.

Either/or.I'm trying to figure out what system I denounced all together. Enlighten me. If you're talking about the enemy combatant program, I've denounced that from day one, and it certainly acts as no protection to me, so I'm a bit confused by your accusation.

I'm trying to figure out what system I denounced all together. Enlighten me. If you're talking about the enemy combatant program, I've denounced that from day one, and it certainly acts as no protection to me, so I'm a bit confused by your accusation.

Not you!

Sorry if it was confusing - I meant the terrorist/freedomfighter/practitioner_of_religious_freedom.

If you thought I meant you, please accept my apologies for that.

Well, did they claim citienship or loyalty to some other, higher, outside-community?
Well, IIRC correctly, we started looking at all the militas after that, but never rounded them up.

Again, the point is as much as everyone keeps screaming 9/11, that doesn't justify totally throwing treaties and the Constiution out of the window. We tried that once after Pearl Harbor* and we finally appoligised 40 years later.

*I love the "Our oceans don't protect us anymore!" crowd, I'm starting to wonder if they never heard of Pearl, or the War of 1812, or the Revolution.

America's greatest strength is that it forgets, eventually, and moves back to looking forward. Its greatest weakness is that it forgets so when it happens again, we over react.

Why waste fair trial on someone who doesn't recognise US jurisdiction anyway?
He opted out of the system, didn't he?
And now he can get exactly what he wants.
Because the ideal of the fair trial is worth upholding even if the person being tried doesn't recognize it, and the US is supposed to be a nation founded on ideals as opposed to a shared ethnicity or cultural history.

Not you!

Sorry if it was confusing - I meant the terrorist/freedomfighter/practitioner_of_religious_freedom.

If you thought I meant you, please accept my apologies for that.
No problem.

Interesting, because the comment
I just disliked the "Guys like him" comment. Everyone is supposed to be equal before the law and that type of BS irritates me.

Because the ideal of the fair trial is worth upholding even if the person being tried doesn't recognize it, and the US is supposed to be a nation founded on ideals as opposed to a shared ethnicity or cultural history.

Ideals must be shared, or they operate on the 'I have a pink elephant and it is pretty!'-level.

Ideals have no intrinsic value - their value is a result of sharing of them, which makes them essentially a cultural factor.

Well, IIRC correctly, we started looking at all the militas after that, but never rounded them up.

Again, the point is as much as everyone keeps screaming 9/11, that doesn't justify totally throwing treaties and the Constiution out of the window. We tried that once after Pearl Harbor* and we finally appoligised 40 years later.

*I love the "Our oceans don't protect us anymore!" crowd, I'm starting to wonder if they never heard of Pearl, or the War of 1812, or the Revolution.

America's greatest strength is that it forgets, eventually, and moves back to looking forward. Its greatest weakness is that it forgets so when it happens again, we over react.


I'm no American.

As I see it, the essence of american warfare is it absoluteness.
If you pick a fight with America, the best you can hope for is that your descendants end up in a reservation. The worst? I'm sure we can all paint our own do-it-by-number- nightmare.

Apologies don't mean much after you are dead.
If you pick a fight with the wrong enemy, the problem is yours.

Ideals must be shared, or they operate on the 'I have a pink elephant and it is pretty!'-level.

Ideals have no intrinsic value - their value is a result of sharing of them, which makes them essentially a cultural factor.
And the nation, at its most basic level, shares them--the idea of "innocent until proven guilty" is ingrained in us from the time we're kids, and so even if an enemy mocks that (and there's been no proof provided openly as of yet that this guy is an enemy), we respect our ideals enough that we provide him the protections he wouldn't provide us if the tables were turned. If we don't, we short ourselves, we sell out our ideals for a little false security.

And the nation, at its most basic level, shares them--the idea of "innocent until proven guilty" is ingrained in us from the time we're kids, and so even if an enemy mocks that (and there's been no proof provided openly as of yet that this guy is an enemy), we respect our ideals enough that we provide him the protections he wouldn't provide us if the tables were turned. If we don't, we short ourselves, we sell out our ideals for a little false security.
unfortunatly, while Innocent until proven guilty is a nice sentiment, it does get broken often.


and not by the government but by the media.

I'm no American.

As I see it, the essence of american warfare is it absoluteness.
If you pick a fight with America, the best you can hope for is that your descendants end up in a reservation. The worst? I'm sure we can all paint our own do-it-by-number- nightmare.

Apologies don't mean much after you are dead.
If you pick a fight with the wrong enemy, the problem is yours.
Here's the problem though, we are not at war. There is no state to bomb, there is no place to occupy. Instead we're left with a shadow war where the rules are NOT that of war, and therefor fall into the jurisdiction of the US courts.

There is a very good reason why the framers designed the system to seperate out the military and civilian aspects of the courts, they had enough of the British idea of having civilians tried by the military.

BTW, what I speak of has been brought up in this thread before, the internment of over 120,000 (I was off in numbers above) of Japanese-Americans, 2/3s of which were American citizens during WWII in consentration camps. They were targeted because "Guys like them" bombed Pearl Harbor and killed thousands. They were rounded up to "protect" us from the evil Jap threat because the world had changed.

And, ironcially, the highest decorated military unit in US history was comprised of Japanese-Americans who were not allowed to go back home.

It took us 40 years to admit that our actions were wrong then.

And the nation, at its most basic level, shares them--the idea of "innocent until proven guilty" is ingrained in us from the time we're kids, and so even if an enemy mocks that (and there's been no proof provided openly as of yet that this guy is an enemy), we respect our ideals enough that we provide him the protections he wouldn't provide us if the tables were turned. If we don't, we short ourselves, we sell out our ideals for a little false security.

*shrug*
I must say/plead that I am one of the most unidealistic persons on the planet.

What you are dealing with is essentially a clash of cultures.
Such clashes are typically resolved in one of 2 fashions.
A] assimilation: one culture dissolves into the other. Peaceful.
B] extermination: one of 'em wipes the other out. War.

Now, your opponents ( the outside ones ) have already chosen the violent option. Any idea(l) of resolution other than by force is by now pointless.

The only option you have is to fight with viciousness, deliberateness, ruthlessness and mercilessness.
They ( political islamists ) have shown your ideals to be weaknesses to be used against you. You cannot afford such weaknesses.

On a sidenote: I don't denounce political islam because of its claims to religious revelation. I denounce it because of its concurrent claim to political revelation.

Here's the problem though, we are not at war. There is no state to bomb, there is no place to occupy. Instead we're left with a shadow war where the rules are NOT that of war, and therefor fall into the jurisdiction of the US courts.

SNIP

You are of a war not of your choosing.
The fact that your institutions cannot define this war with any clarity establishes the fact ( to me, anyway ) that this war is not of your choosing.

*shrug*
I must say/plead that I am one of the most unidealistic persons on the planet.

What you are dealing with is essentially a clash of cultures.
Such clashes are typically resolved in one of 2 fashions.
A] assimilation: one culture dissolves into the other. Peaceful.
B] extermination: one of 'em wipes the other out. War.

Now, your opponents ( the outside ones ) have already chosen the violent option. Any idea(l) of resolution other than by force is by now pointless.

The only option you have is to fight with viciousness, deliberateness, ruthlessness and mercilessness.
They ( political islamists ) have shown your ideals to be weaknesses to be used against you. You cannot afford such weaknesses.

On a sidenote: I don't denounce political islam because of its claims to religious revelation. I denounce it because of its concurrent claim to political revelation.Sorry, but I don't buy into the idea that in order to defeat your enemy, you must become him. If that's the case, then we're doomed to become scum, and I refuse to accept that.

Sorry, but I don't buy into the idea that in order to defeat your enemy, you must become him. If that's the case, then we're doomed to become scum, and I refuse to accept that.

*shrug*
One of the saving graces of democracy is that it allows you to morph back and forth. Which is another way of saying that I buy the idea in full. It takes fascism to defeat fascism.

I thorougly sympathise with your position, but I don't share it.

You are of a war not of your choosing.
The fact that your institutions cannot define this war with any clarity establishes the fact ( to me, anyway ) that this war is not of your choosing.
That and the enemy is not bound by any laws or rules save those that they interrpet to be worthy to follow.

they would allow a child to become a combatant (children suicide bombers) they would use family and innocents as sheilds.
they would hide among citizens and use them as sheilds.
they would purposely target innocent people by the dozens to get one 'Infidel'

and they are the ones who delcared war on us, shot at us, bombed us for many years before we said "enough is enough."

You are of a war not of your choosing.
The fact that your institutions cannot define this war with any clarity establishes the fact ( to me, anyway ) that this war is not of your choosing.
I disagree, I would say that the systems in place are well enough to fight this and there is no need to violate our own belief systems in order to win. Doing so just gives them what they want anyway, and I refuse to do that.

That and the enemy is not bound by any laws or rules save those that they interrpet to be worthy to follow.

they would allow a child to become a combatant (children suicide bombers) they would use family and innocents as sheilds.
they would hide among citizens and use them as sheilds.
they would purposely target innocent people by the dozens to get one 'Infidel'

and they are the ones who delcared war on us, shot at us, bombed us for many years before we said "enough is enough."
Does that mean we must toss aside out lives and values in order to fight? We must destroy the village in order to save it? Must we too strap bomb on our kids and send them into crowded marketplaces in order to secure a win?

Thank you, no. I'd rather come back home to America, not a place I can no longer reconise but bears her name.

That and the enemy is not bound by any laws or rules save those that they interrpet to be worthy to follow.

they would allow a child to become a combatant (children suicide bombers) they would use family and innocents as sheilds.
they would hide among citizens and use them as sheilds.
they would purposely target innocent people by the dozens to get one 'Infidel'

and they are the ones who delcared war on us, shot at us, bombed us for many years before we said "enough is enough."

I know what they are. Don't push your luck, though.
Support ( such as mine ) for your position is ambivalent.
It is in fact contingent on ( my ) understanding of that ambivalence - so refrain from seeking to clarify it.

In the end, the position of the US is pretty much that of the 'I' in the Bruce Springsteen-song Devils and Dust:
'When I look into your eyes I see just devils and dust.'

They made it so - not you.

1. The idea behind the US is that they're not "American" rights, they're human rights that all people have as a consequence of being human. Violating someone's basic human rights should not be an option for our government, no matter where they're from.

Flying passenger planes into buildings and murdering 3000 innocent people seems to be a pretty big violation of human rights

I disagree, I would say that the systems in place are well enough to fight this and there is no need to violate our own belief systems in order to win. Doing so just gives them what they want anyway, and I refuse to do that.


I don't think you have understood what they want.
Hint: it aint a change in your value-systems...

Does that mean we must toss aside out lives and values in order to fight? We must destroy the village in order to save it? Must we too strap bomb on our kids and send them into crowded marketplaces in order to secure a win?

Thank you, no. I'd rather come back home to America, not a place I can no longer reconise but bears her name.

No, we aren't stupid enough to strap bombs to ourselves.

But, we do have the technological means to eliminate them and their progeny from the face of the earth forever. I keep wondering what's stopping us.

Maybe we're more evenhanded and eventempered than you think.

Odd, a few people like you (White, ex-military, American) went and killed hundreds of people in Oklahoma City (Including many children) and yet I never saw people being rounded up as enemy combatants after that.

You're really, really funny. I'm not white, ROFLMAO.

I don't think you have understood what they want.
Hint: it aint a change in your value-systems...
Really? They have caused the US to react and strike out blindly. Anger led us into positions that have allowed them to paint us as the monster AND we obliged by acting the part of monsters. We did exactly what they wanted to make us a bigger target and one that is hated irregardless of experiance.

Really? They have caused the US to react and strike out blindly. Anger led us into positions that have allowed them to paint us as the monster AND we obliged by acting the part of monsters. We did exactly what they wanted to make us a bigger target and one that is hated irregardless of experiance.

Really.
They don't seek to change what you are.
They seek to change that you are.

Why else bother to try to make you a larger target?
A larger target for what purpose?

Flying passenger planes into buildings and murdering 3000 innocent people seems to be a pretty big violation of human rights

Totally irrelevant. As your mother probably once taught you, two wrongs don't make a right. Though ironically your eye-for-an-eye philosophy is quite close to the ideals of Sharia law.

Really? They have caused the US to react and strike out blindly. Anger led us into positions that have allowed them to paint us as the monster AND we obliged by acting the part of monsters. We did exactly what they wanted to make us a bigger target and one that is hated irregardless of experiance.

I'm still laughing because you think I'm white...

I'm still laughing because you think I'm white...


*grinning* I think I know exactly what you mean...

I am not an American citizen but must confess to being horrified and sickened by what a few members of people appear to have said on this discussion. Any human being deserves the fundamental human rights given to her/him under the Human Rights Act. There is absolutely no reason for any person to be detained without trial no matter what they have done. In this "war against terrorism" America in particular broadcasted that it was the leader of the free world - how can this "free world" exist when suspects are locked up indefinitely under conditions of torture? This is NOT a free world or any semblance of one. Under the American Constitution all rights to citizens are guaranteed non-negotiable. They simply are. If this person has committed an act of terrorism then this should be brought up under a court of law. The same applies to any member in Guantanamo Bay. If they have done something wrong and it can be proven - try them. If not, deport them. 9/11 is no excuse.

I am not an American citizen but must confess to being horrified and sickened by what a few members of people appear to have said on this discussion. Any human being deserves the fundamental human rights given to her/him under the Human Rights Act. There is absolutely no reason for any person to be detained without trial no matter what they have done. In this "war against terrorism" America in particular broadcasted that it was the leader of the free world - how can this "free world" exist when suspects are locked up indefinitely under conditions of torture? This is NOT a free world or any semblance of one. Under the American Constitution all rights to citizens are guaranteed non-negotiable. They simply are. If this person has committed an act of terrorism then this should be brought up under a court of law. The same applies to any member in Guantanamo Bay. If they have done something wrong and it can be proven - try them. If not, deport them. 9/11 is no excuse.


Ummm... he's not an American citizen.

And screw the people in Guantanamo.

I am not an American citizen but must confess to being horrified and sickened by what a few members of people appear to have said on this discussion. Any human being deserves the fundamental human rights given to her/him under the Human Rights Act. There is absolutely no reason for any person to be detained without trial no matter what they have done. In this "war against terrorism" America in particular broadcasted that it was the leader of the free world - how can this "free world" exist when suspects are locked up indefinitely under conditions of torture? This is NOT a free world or any semblance of one. Under the American Constitution all rights to citizens are guaranteed non-negotiable. They simply are. If this person has committed an act of terrorism then this should be brought up under a court of law. The same applies to any member in Guantanamo Bay. If they have done something wrong and it can be proven - try them. If not, deport them. 9/11 is no excuse.

If by "Human Rights Act", you're referring to the UN's Universal Declaration of Human Rights, then unfortunately the US never signed on to that. I do essentially agree with the majority of the people in this thread, however. The guy should be given a trial. If we know he's a terrorist, if we have significant evidence to prove it, then where's the harm in bringing him to trial? If there's good evidence to prove it, I doubt an American jury would acquit him.

And you know, I find it funny that all these people are advocating such a major change in how our country works to fight terrorism. Didn't a lot of people say, right after 9/11, that if we allow them to scare us into changing things, that the terrorists won?

And someone, please, explain to me how using 9/11 to justify the suspension of basic rights is not disrespectful to the people who died in the attacks. I'm so fucking tired of people, from politicians to regular citizens, saying we have to do this shit for the people who died on 9/11. "Don't you think they'd want us to find the terrorists?" I don't know, I don't know anyone who died then. But I would guess that most of em wouldn't want to see people oppressed by what is supposed to be the land of the free. To use 9/11 as a justification for anything is disrespectful and, quite frankly, disgusting.

[QUOTE]
[I]Ummm... he's not an American citizen.

And screw the people in Guantanamo.

I didn't say that he was an American citizen, I said that he had rights as a human being as do all the people illegally detained in Guantanamo Bay.

Ummm... he's not an American citizen.

And screw the people in Guantanamo.
Yeah screw those people … they have been detained, which means they are automatically guilty

Ummm... he's not an American citizen.

And screw the people in Guantanamo.

Yeah, screw the people in the US, they're all child raping soldiers anyway.

No, of course, I didn't mean that. But it's more or less what you're doing - Accusing without proof. 9/11 is not proof that the people in Guantanamo are guilty.

Yeah, screw the people in the US, they're all child raping soldiers anyway.

No, of course, I didn't mean that. But it's more or less what you're doing - Accusing without proof. 9/11 is not proof that the people in Guantanamo are guilty.


Well, sah, I guess the proof is that they don't like porkchops for dinner.
And bitch about it.

*shrug*
I must say/plead that I am one of the most unidealistic persons on the planet.

What you are dealing with is essentially a clash of cultures.
Such clashes are typically resolved in one of 2 fashions.
A] assimilation: one culture dissolves into the other. Peaceful.
B] extermination: one of 'em wipes the other out. War.

Now, your opponents ( the outside ones ) have already chosen the violent option. Any idea(l) of resolution other than by force is by now pointless.

The only option you have is to fight with viciousness, deliberateness, ruthlessness and mercilessness.
They ( political islamists ) have shown your ideals to be weaknesses to be used against you. You cannot afford such weaknesses.

On a sidenote: I don't denounce political islam because of its claims to religious revelation. I denounce it because of its concurrent claim to political revelation.
here's the big problem with your analysis

we dont know that THIS guy fits your definitions. we dont know that he denounced the united states. we dont know that he was planning future terrorist attacks. we dont know that he knew anyone in alqaeda.

all we know is that he was a foreign student with a long name.

the government has to prove that he was a member of an alquaeda sleeper cell. if they can prove it, then we should throw the book at him. if they cant prove it, they should send him home.

there are actual moslems who come to this country to get an education. their religion and their citizenship does not make them terrorists.

and, as regards the first post, where DOES the government get off suggesting that lack of defense at this point indicates anything? we just had a very high profile trial here in new mexico where the defense called no witnesses. all they did was make opening and closing statements. they felt that the governments case was weak. maybe this guys lawyers felt the same way. its america, youre allowed to do that.

And screw the people in Guantanamo.

Until they decide to sue that is.

*cha-ching*

here's the big problem with your analysis

we dont know that THIS guy fits your definitions. we dont know that he denounced the united states. we dont know that he was planning future terrorist attacks. we dont know that he knew anyone in alqaeda.

all we know is that he was a foreign student with a long name.

the government has to prove that he was a member of an alquaeda sleeper cell. if they can prove it, then we should throw the book at him. if they cant prove it, they should send him home.

there are actual moslems who come to this country to get an education. their religion and their citizenship does not make them terrorists.

and, as regards the first post, where DOES the government get off suggesting that lack of defense at this point indicates anything? we just had a very high profile trial here in new mexico where the defense called no witnesses. all they did was make opening and closing statements. they felt that the governments case was weak. maybe this guys lawyers felt the same way. its america, youre allowed to do that.


If you need proof, a test is ridiculously easy to contrapt.
It may not satify a lawyer, but that is not necessary.
It only needs to satisfy an already zealous guardian.

Meanwhile, I can think of no reason to apply standards other than the dictates of Security.
( Since I don't share your ideals, and don't consider ideals to have any relevance outside the cultural group that shares those ideals ).

If you need proof, a test is ridiculously easy to contrapt.
It may not satify a lawyer, but that is not necessary.
It only needs to satisfy an already zealous guardian.

Meanwhile, I can think of no reason to apply standards other than the dictates of Security.
( Since I don't share your ideals, and don't consider ideals to have any relevance outside the cultural group that shares those ideals ).
im sure that if you ran the united states you wouldnt allow any foriegn students.

we do

and we cant afford to throw all foreigners in jail on the excuse that they come from a problematic country and have a complicated name.

you are quite impressed with your own ideas of how things should be run but this is about how the united states is run. your ideas wouldnt work here. nor would they be welcome to any but the most paranoid. we prefer the rule of law. its not a unique idea but we are still quite fond of it.

Yes, but if they are linked to Al Queda...I dont think they deserve to be treated with equal rights....they have a desire to murder.

I am linking you to al-qaeda.

You obvioulsy have a desire to murder.

You should be detained indefinitely.

and as it was also stated... only under special circumstances. Bolding mine from another trial also mentioned on this thread.


so does this person held have significant ties in the US? if so then he would be protected by the 5th amendment. if not...

This (http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=494&invol=259) Defines the term "The People" to mean Citizens of the United States and/or those aliens who have Significant ties to territories of the United States.

tho this is Legaliese, so I will admit that I might be reading the Reversals wrong.

why can't lawyers speak plain, everyman english? :headbang:

"Therefore, any restrictions on searches and seizures of nonresident aliens and their foreign property must be imposed by the political branches through diplomatic understanding, treaty or legislation. "

It means that if a person is a legal resident, which you are for example if you have a student visa, then the constitution applies to you. If you aren't, only fundamental rights apply to you, not "non-fundamental" rights, and any proceedings against you must be done through diplomatic means.

Which means either the constitution applies to you, or you have to go the diplomatic way.

So that excuse of "he's not a US citizen" doesn't work. In his case, the constitution applies.

If he was an illegal immigrant, they'd still have to go to a diplomatic court. He can't be held without charges.

I bet they're coming for me next... :(

You can't first denounce the system all together and THEN expect to be protected by it.

Either/or.

No, you are protected by the system even if you are denouncing it.

6th Amendment
In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the state and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law; and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor; and to have the assistance of counsel for his defense.

America's greatest strength is that it forgets, eventually, and moves back to looking forward. Its greatest weakness is that it forgets so when it happens again, we over react.

That can be said about humanity in general.

*shrug*
I must say/plead that I am one of the most unidealistic persons on the planet.

What you are dealing with is essentially a clash of cultures.
Such clashes are typically resolved in one of 2 fashions.
A] assimilation: one culture dissolves into the other. Peaceful.
B] extermination: one of 'em wipes the other out. War.

Now, your opponents ( the outside ones ) have already chosen the violent option. Any idea(l) of resolution other than by force is by now pointless.

The only option you have is to fight with viciousness, deliberateness, ruthlessness and mercilessness.
They ( political islamists ) have shown your ideals to be weaknesses to be used against you. You cannot afford such weaknesses.

On a sidenote: I don't denounce political islam because of its claims to religious revelation. I denounce it because of its concurrent claim to political revelation.

There is a correct way to wage war. What you are suggesting is not a correct way, nor are we presently following it.

Flying passenger planes into buildings and murdering 3000 innocent people seems to be a pretty big violation of human rights

However, the government does not have the right to violate those rights.

No, we aren't stupid enough to strap bombs to ourselves.

But, we do have the technological means to eliminate them and their progeny from the face of the earth forever. I keep wondering what's stopping us.

Maybe we're more evenhanded and eventempered than you think.

Oh yeah... that's like saying we should kill everyone in a country just because their leaders are idiots... Do you really think the average citizen wants to keep the war going over there? You see a few thousand insurgents and all of a sudden you want to kill millions

Why waste fair trial on someone who doesn't recognise US jurisdiction anyway?
He opted out of the system, didn't he?
And now he can get exactly what he wants.
Flying passenger planes into buildings and murdering 3000 innocent people seems to be a pretty big violation of human rights
And screw the people in Guantanamo.
To me it seems you're all saying the same thing:
"We blindly trust the US government. If they claim someone is a terrorist or illegal combatant, we won't ask for proof or ask any questions. If the government suspect that someone is a terrorist or illegal combatant, then we expect the government to be correct. As such, the suspect is for all intents and purposes a terrorist or illegal combatant, and does not deserve the protection of the law."

Unquestioning faith in your government is a dangerous thing.

I know what they are. Don't push your luck, though.
Support ( such as mine ) for your position is ambivalent.
It is in fact contingent on ( my ) understanding of that ambivalence - so refrain from seeking to clarify it.

In the end, the position of the US is pretty much that of the 'I' in the Bruce Springsteen-song Devils and Dust:
'When I look into your eyes I see just devils and dust.'

They made it so - not you.

Was it looking in a mirror?

Don't you understand? They don't hate us because of "our freedoms," they don't hate us because we're not a secular Muslim state. Heck, they haven't targeted Brazil!

They hate us because of what we've done, to them and the international community. If we keep doing this, it's going to become worse. Personally, I don't want that. I don't think any of us do.

Ummm... he's not an American citizen.

And screw the people in Guantanamo.

He was an american resident, the rights apply to him.

I might have overlooked something but it seems like this guy isnt an American.

And it also seems like he is probably a terrorist.

Therefore,

1. Who the hell cares if he doesnt have American rights...hes not an American.

2. Hes probably a terrorist sun of a bitch.

3. His name is Ali Saleh Kahlah al-Marri which confirms 2.

Ok argument number one is good. The other two not so much, except if he was captured without a uniform. If he is a non-uniformed un-regular combatant, then the rules of war (geneva convention) don't apply to him. We can treat him however we please. And in order for the US constitution to apply to you, you have to be a citizen of the United States.

To me it seems you're all saying the same thing:
"We blindly trust the US government. If they claim someone is a terrorist or illegal combatant, we won't ask for proof or ask any questions. If the government suspect that someone is a terrorist or illegal combatant, then we expect the government to be correct. As such, the suspect is for all intents and purposes a terrorist or illegal combatant, and does not deserve the protection of the law."

Unquestioning faith in your government is a dangerous thing.

Civil Disobedience
by Henry David Thoreau
I heartily accept the motto, "That government is best which governs least"; and I should like to see it acted up to more rapidly and systematically. Carried out, it finally amounts to this, which also I believe--"That government is best which governs not at all"; and when men are prepared for it, that will be the kind of government which the will have. Government is at best but an expedient; but most governments are usually, and all governments are sometimes, inexpedient. The objections which have been brought against a standing army, and they are many and weighty, and deserve to prevail, may also at last be brought against a standing government. The standing army is only an arm of the standing government. The government itself, which is only the mode which the people have chosen to execute their will, is equally liable to be abused and perverted before the people can act through it. Witness the present Mexican war, the work of comparatively a few individuals using the standing government as their tool; for in the outset, the people would not have consented to this measure.

This American government--what is it but a tradition, though a recent one, endeavoring to transmit itself unimpaired to posterity, but each instant losing some of its integrity? It has not the vitality and force of a single living man; for a single man can bend it to his will. It is a sort of wooden gun to the people themselves. But it is not the less necessary for this; for the people must have some complicated machinery or other, and hear its din, to satisfy that idea of government which they have. Governments show thus how successfully men can be imposed upon, even impose on themselves, for their own advantage. It is excellent, we must all allow. Yet this government never of itself furthered any enterprise, but by the alacrity with which it got out of its way. It does not keep the country free. It does not settle the West. It does not educate. The character inherent in the American people has done all that has been accomplished; and it would have done somewhat more, if the government had not sometimes got in its way. For government is an expedient, by which men would fain succeed in letting one another alone; and, as has been said, when it is most expedient, the governed are most let alone by it. Trade and commerce, if they were not made of india-rubber, would never manage to bounce over obstacles which legislators are continually putting in their way; and if one were to judge these men wholly by the effects of their actions and not partly by their intentions, they would deserve to be classed and punished with those mischievious persons who put obstructions on the railroads.

But, to speak practically and as a citizen, unlike those who call themselves no-government men, I ask for, not at one no government, but at once a better government. Let every man make known what kind of government would command his respect, and that will be one step toward obtaining it.

After all, the practical reason why, when the power is once in the hands of the people, a majority are permitted, and for a long period continue, to rule is not because they are most likely to be in the right, nor because this seems fairest to the minority, but because they are physically the strongest. But a government in which the majority rule in all cases can not be based on justice, even as far as men understand it. Can there not be a government in which the majorities do not virtually decide right and wrong, but conscience?--in which majorities decide only those questions to which the rule of expediency is applicable? Must the citizen ever for a moment, or in the least degree, resign his conscience to the legislator? WHy has every man a conscience then? I think that we should be men first, and subjects afterward. It is not desirable to cultivate a respect for the law, so much as for the right. The only obligation which I have a right to assume is to do at any time what I think right. It is truly enough said that a corporation has no conscience; but a corporation on conscientious men is a corporation with a conscience. Law never made men a whit more just; and, by means of their respect for it, even the well-disposed are daily made the agents on injustice. A common and natural result of an undue respect for the law is, that you may see a file of soldiers, colonel, captain, corporal, privates, powder-monkeys, and all, marching in admirable order over hill and dale to the wars, against their wills, ay, against their common sense and consciences, which makes it very steep marching indeed, and produces a palpitation of the heart. They have no doubt that it is a damnable business in which they are concerned; they are all peaceably inclined. Now, what are they? Men at all? or small movable forts and magazines, at the service of some unscrupulous man in power? Visit the Navy Yard, and behold a marine, such a man as an American government can make, or such as it can make a man with its black arts--a mere shadow and reminiscence of humanity, a man laid out alive and standing, and already, as one may say, buried under arms with funeral accompaniment, though it may be,

"Not a drum was heard, not a funeral note, As his corse to the rampart we hurried; Not a soldier discharged his farewell shot O'er the grave where out hero was buried."

The mass of men serve the state thus, not as men mainly, but as machines, with their bodies. They are the standing army, and the militia, jailers, constables, posse comitatus, etc. In most cases there is no free exercise whatever of the judgement or of the moral sense; but they put themselves on a level with wood and earth and stones; and wooden men can perhaps be manufactured that will serve the purpose as well. Such command no more respect than men of straw or a lump of dirt. They have the same sort of worth only as horses and dogs. Yet such as these even are commonly esteemed good citizens. Others--as most legislators, politicians, lawyers, ministers, and office-holders--serve the state chiefly with their heads; and, as the rarely make any moral distinctions, they are as likely to serve the devil, without intending it, as God. A very few--as heroes, patriots, martyrs, reformers in the great sense, and men--serve the state with their consciences also, and so necessarily resist it for the most part; and they are commonly treated as enemies by it. A wise man will only be useful as a man, and will not submit to be "clay," and "stop a hole to keep the wind away," but leave that office to his dust at least:

"I am too high born to be propertied, To be a second at control, Or useful serving-man and instrument To any sovereign state throughout the world."

He who gives himself entirely to his fellow men appears to them useless and selfish; but he who gives himself partially to them in pronounced a benefactor and philanthropist.

How does it become a man to behave toward the American government today? I answer, that he cannot without disgrace be associated with it. I cannot for an instant recognize that political organization as my government which is the slave's government also.

All men recognize the right of revolution; that is, the right to refuse allegiance to, and to resist, the government, when its tyranny or its inefficiency are great and unendurable. But almost all say that such is not the case now. But such was the case, they think, in the Revolution of '75. If one were to tell me that this was a bad government because it taxed certain foreign commodities brought to its ports, it is most probable that I should not make an ado about it, for I can do without them. All machines have their friction; and possibly this does enough good to counter-balance the evil. At any rate, it is a great evil to make a stir about it. But when the friction comes to have its machine, and oppression and robbery are organized, I say, let us not have such a machine any longer. In other words, when a sixth of the population of a nation which has undertaken to be the refuge of liberty are slaves, and a whole country is unjustly overrun and conquered by a foreign army, and subjected to military law, I think that it is not too soon for honest men to rebel and revolutionize. What makes this duty the more urgent is that fact that the country so overrun is not our own, but ours is the invading army.

Paley, a common authority with many on moral questions, in his chapter on the "Duty of Submission to Civil Government," resolves all civil obligation into expediency; and he proceeds to say that "so long as the interest of the whole society requires it, that it, so long as the established government cannot be resisted or changed without public inconveniencey, it is the will of God. . .that the established government be obeyed--and no longer. This principle being admitted, the justice of every particular case of resistance is reduced to a computation of the quantity of the danger and grievance on the one side, and of the probability and expense of redressing it on the other." Of this, he says, every man shall judge for himself. But Paley appears never to have contemplated those cases to which the rule of expediency does not apply, in which a people, as well and an individual, must do justice, cost what it may. If I have unjustly wrested a plank from a drowning man, I must restore it to him though I drown myself. This, according to Paley, would be inconvenient. But he that would save his life, in such a case, shall lose it. This people must cease to hold slaves, and to make war on Mexico, though it cost them their existence as a people.

In their practice, nations agree with Paley; but does anyone think that Massachusetts does exactly what is right at the present crisis?

"A drab of stat, a cloth-o'-silver slut, To have her train borne up, and her soul trail in the dirt."

Practically speaking, the opponents to a reform in Massachusetts are not a hundred thousand politicians at the South, but a hundred thousand merchants and farmers here, who are more interested in commerce and agriculture than they are in humanity, and are not prepared to do justice to the slave and to Mexico, cost what it may. I quarrel not with far-off foes, but with those who, neat at home, co-operate with, and do the bidding of, those far away, and without whom the latter would be harmless. We are accustomed to say, that the mass of men are unprepared; but improvement is slow, because the few are not as materially wiser or better than the many. It is not so important that many should be good as you, as that there be some absolute goodness somewhere; for that will leaven the whole lump. There are thousands who are in opinion opposed to slavery and to the war, who yet in effect do nothing to put an end to them; who, esteeming themselves children of Washington and Franklin, sit down with their hands in their pockets, and say that they know not what to do, and do nothing; who even postpone the question of freedom to the question of free trade, and quietly read the prices-current along with the latest advices from Mexico, after dinner, and, it may be, fall asleep over them both. What is the price-current of an honest man and patriot today? They hesitate, and they regret, and sometimes they petition; but they do nothing in earnest and with effect. They will wait, well disposed, for other to remedy the evil, that they may no longer have it to regret. At most, they give up only a cheap vote, and a feeble countenance and Godspeed, to the right, as it goes by them. There are nine hundred and ninety-nine patrons of virtue to one virtuous man. But it is easier to deal with the real possessor of a thing than with the temporary guardian of it.

All voting is a sort of gaming, like checkers or backgammon, with a slight moral tinge to it, a playing with right and wrong, with moral questions; and betting naturally accompanies it. The character of the voters is not staked. I cast my vote, perchance, as I think right; but I am not vitally concerned that that right should prevail. I am willing to leave it to the majority. Its obligation, therefore, never exceeds that of expediency. Even voting for the right is doing nothing for it. It is only expressing to men feebly your desire that it should prevail. A wise man will not leave the right to the mercy of chance, nor wish it to prevail through the power of the majority. There is but little virtue in the action of masses of men. When the majority shall at length vote for the abolition of slavery, it will be because they are indifferent to slavery, or because there is but little slavery left to be abolished by their vote. They will then be the only slaves. Only his vote can hasten the abolition of slavery who asserts his own freedom by his vote.

I hear of a convention to be held at Baltimore, or elsewhere, for the selection of a candidate for the Presidency, made up chiefly of editors, and men who are politicians by profession; but I think, what is it to any independent, intelligent, and respectable man what decision they may come to? Shall we not have the advantage of this wisdom and honesty, nevertheless? Can we not count upon some independent votes? Are there not many individuals in the country who do not attend conventions? But no: I find that the respectable man, so called, has immediately drifted from his position, and despairs of his country, when his country has more reasons to despair of him. He forthwith adopts one of the candidates thus selected as the only available one, thus proving that he is himself available for any purposes of the demagogue. His vote is of no more worth than that of any unprincipled foreigner or hireling native, who may have been bought. O for a man who is a man, and, and my neighbor says, has a bone is his back which you cannot pass your hand through! Our statistics are at fault: the population has been returned too large. How many men are there to a square thousand miles in the country? Hardly one. Does not America offer any inducement for men to settle here? The American has dwindled into an Odd Fellow--one who may be known by the development of his organ of gregariousness, and a manifest lack of intellect and cheerful self-reliance; whose first and chief concern, on coming into the world, is to see that the almshouses are in good repair; and, before yet he has lawfully donned the virile garb, to collect a fund to the support of the widows and orphans that may be; who, in short, ventures to live only by the aid of the Mutual Insurance company, which has promised to bury him decently.

It is not a man's duty, as a matter of course, to devote himself to the eradication of any, even to most enormous, wrong; he may still properly have other concerns to engage him; but it is his duty, at least, to wash his hands of it, and, if he gives it no thought longer, not to give it practically his support. If I devote myself to other pursuits and contemplations, I must first see, at least, that I do not pursue them sitting upon another man's shoulders. I must get off him first, that he may pursue his contemplations too. See what gross inconsistency is tolerated. I have heard some of my townsmen say, "I should like to have them order me out to help put down an insurrection of the slaves, or to march to Mexico--see if I would go"; and yet these very men have each, directly by their allegiance, and so indirectly, at least, by their money, furnished a substitute. The soldier is applauded who refuses to serve in an unjust war by those who do not refuse to sustain the unjust government which makes the war; is applauded by those whose own act and authority he disregards and sets at naught; as if the state were penitent to that degree that it hired one to scourge it while it sinned, but not to that degree that it left off sinning for a moment. Thus, under the name of Order and Civil Government, we are all made at last to pay homage to and support our own meanness. After the first blush of sin comes its indifference; and from immoral it becomes, as it were, unmoral, and not quite unnecessary to that life which we have made.

The broadest and most prevalent error requires the most disinterested virtue to sustain it. The slight reproach to which the virtue of patriotism is commonly liable, the noble are most likely to incur. Those who, while they disapprove of the character and measures of a government, yield to it their allegiance and support are undoubtedly its most conscientious supporters, and so frequently the most serious obstacles to reform. Some are petitioning the State to dissolve the Union, to disregard the requisitions of the President. Why do they not dissolve it themselves--the union between themselves and the State--and refuse to pay their quota into its treasury? Do not they stand in same relation to the State that the State does to the Union? And have not the same reasons prevented the State from resisting the Union which have prevented them from resisting the State?

How can a man be satisfied to entertain and opinion merely, and enjoy it? Is there any enjoyment in it, if his opinion is that he is aggrieved? If you are cheated out of a single dollar by your neighbor, you do not rest satisfied with knowing you are cheated, or with saying that you are cheated, or even with petitioning him to pay you your due; but you take effectual steps at once to obtain the full amount, and see to it that you are never cheated again. Action from principle, the perception and the performance of right, changes things and relations; it is essentially revolutionary, and does not consist wholly with anything which was. It not only divided States and churches, it divides families; ay, it divides the individual, separating the diabolical in him from the divine.

Unjust laws exist: shall we be content to obey them, or shall we endeavor to amend them, and obey them until we have succeeded, or shall we transgress them at once? Men, generally, under such a government as this, think that they ought to wait until they have persuaded the majority to alter them. They think that, if they should resist, the remedy would be worse than the evil. But it is the fault of the government itself that the remedy is worse than the evil. It makes it worse. Why is it not more apt to anticipate and provide for reform? Why does it not cherish its wise minority? Why does it cry and resist before it is hurt? Why does it not encourage its citizens to put out its faults, and do better than it would have them? Why does it always crucify Christ and excommunicate Copernicus and Luther, and pronounce Washington and Franklin rebels?

One would think, that a deliberate and practical denial of its authority was the only offense never contemplated by its government; else, why has it not assigned its definite, its suitable and proportionate, penalty? If a man who has no property refuses but once to earn nine shillings for the State, he is put in prison for a period unlimited by any law that I know, and determined only by the discretion of those who put him there; but if he should steal ninety times nine shillings from the State, he is soon permitted to go at large again.

If the injustice is part of the necessary friction of the machine of government, let it go, let it go: perchance it will wear smooth--certainly the machine will wear out. If the injustice has a spring, or a pulley, or a rope, or a crank, exclusively for itself, then perhaps you may consider whether the remedy will not be worse than the evil; but if it is of such a nature that it requires you to be the agent of injustice to another, then I say, break the law. Let your life be a counter-friction to stop the machine. What I have to do is to see, at any rate, that I do not lend myself to the wrong which I condemn.

As for adopting the ways of the State has provided for remedying the evil, I know not of such ways. They take too much time, and a man's life will be gone. I have other affairs to attend to. I came into this world, not chiefly to make this a good place to live in, but to live in it, be it good or bad. A man has not everything to do, but something; and because he cannot do everything, it is not necessary that he should be petitioning the Governor or the Legislature any more than it is theirs to petition me; and if they should not hear my petition, what should I do then? But in this case the State has provided no way: its very Constitution is the evil. This may seem to be harsh and stubborn and unconcilliatory; but it is to treat with the utmost kindness and consideration the only spirit that can appreciate or deserves it. So is all change for the better, like birth and death, which convulse the body.

I do not hesitate to say, that those who call themselves Abolitionists should at once effectually withdraw their support, both in person and property, from the government of Massachusetts, and not wait till they constitute a majority of one, before they suffer the right to prevail through them. I think that it is enough if they have God on their side, without waiting for that other one. Moreover, any man more right than his neighbors constitutes a majority of one already.

I meet this American government, or its representative, the State government, directly, and face to face, once a year--no more--in the person of its tax-gatherer; this is the only mode in which a man situated as I am necessarily meets it; and it then says distinctly, Recognize me; and the simplest, the most effectual, and, in the present posture of affairs, the indispensablest mode of treating with it on this head, of expressing your little satisfaction with and love for it, is to deny it then. My civil neighbor, the tax-gatherer, is the very man I have to deal with--for it is, after all, with men and not with parchment that I quarrel--and he has voluntarily chosen to be an agent of the government. How shall he ever know well that he is and does as an officer of the government, or as a man, until he is obliged to consider whether he will treat me, his neighbor, for whom he has respect, as a neighbor and well-disposed man, or as a maniac and disturber of the peace, and see if he can get over this obstruction to his neighborlines without a ruder and more impetuous thought or speech corresponding with his action. I know this well, that if one thousand, if one hundred, if ten men whom I could name--if ten honest men only--ay, if one HONEST man, in this State of Massachusetts, ceasing to hold slaves, were actually to withdraw from this co-partnership, and be locked up in the county jail therefor, it would be the abolition of slavery in America. For it matters not how small the beginning may seem to be: what is once well done is done forever. But we love better to talk about it: that we say is our mission. Reform keeps many scores of newspapers in its service, but not one man. If my esteemed neighbor, the State's ambassador, who will devote his days to the settlement of the question of human rights in the Council Chamber, instead of being threatened with the prisons of Carolina, were to sit down the prisoner of Massachusetts, that State which is so anxious to foist the sin of slavery upon her sister--though at present she can discover only an act of inhospitality to be the ground of a quarrel with her--the Legislature would not wholly waive the subject of the following winter.

Under a government which imprisons unjustly, the true place for a just man is also a prison. The proper place today, the only place which Massachusetts has provided for her freer and less despondent spirits, is in her prisons, to be put out and locked out of the State by her own act, as they have already put themselves out by their principles. It is there that the fugitive slave, and the Mexican prisoner on parole, and the Indian come to plead the wrongs of his race should find them; on that separate but more free and honorable ground, where the State places those who are not with her, but against her--the only house in a slave State in which a free man can abide with honor. If any think that their influence would be lost there, and their voices no longer afflict the ear of the State, that they would not be as an enemy within its walls, they do not know by how much truth is stronger than error, nor how much more eloquently and effectively he can combat injustice who has experienced a little in his own person. Cast your whole vote, not a strip of paper merely, but your whole influence. A minority is powerless while it conforms to the majority; it is not even a minority then; but it is irresistible when it clogs by its whole weight. If the alternative is to keep all just men in prison, or give up war and slavery, the State will not hesitate which to choose. If a thousand men were not to pay their tax bills this year, that would not be a violent and bloody measure, as it would be to pay them, and enable the State to commit violence and shed innocent blood. This is, in fact, the definition of a peaceable revolution, if any such is possible. If the tax-gatherer, or any other public officer, asks me, as one has done, "But what shall I do?" my answer is, "If you really wish to do anything, resign your office." When the subject has refused allegiance, and the officer has resigned from office, then the revolution is accomplished. But even suppose blood shed when the conscience is wounded? Through this wound a man's real manhood and immortality flow out, and he bleeds to an everlasting death. I see this blood flowing now.

I have contemplated the imprisonment of the offender, rather than the seizure of his goods--though both will serve the same purpose--because they who assert the purest right, and consequently are most dangerous to a corrupt State, commonly have not spent much time in accumulating property. To such the State renders comparatively small service, and a slight tax is wont to appear exorbitant, particularly if they are obliged to earn it by special labor with their hands. If there were one who lived wholly without the use of money, the State itself would hesitate to demand it of him. But the rich man--not to make any invidious comparison--is always sold to the institution which makes him rich. Absolutely speaking, the more money, the less virtue; for money comes between a man and his objects, and obtains them for him; it was certainly no great virtue to obtain it. It puts to rest many questions which he would otherwise be taxed to answer; while the only new question which it puts is the hard but superfluous one, how to spend it. Thus his moral ground is taken from under his feet. The opportunities of living are diminished in proportion as that are called the "means" are increased. The best thing a man can do for his culture when he is rich is to endeavor to carry out those schemes which he entertained when he was poor. Christ answered the Herodians according to their condition. "Show me the tribute-money," said he--and one took a penny out of his pocket--if you use money which has the image of Caesar on it, and which he has made current and valuable, that is, if you are men of the State, and gladly enjoy the advantages of Caesar's government, then pay him back some of his own when he demands it. "Render therefore to Caesar that which is Caesar's and to God those things which are God's"--leaving them no wiser than before as to which was which; for they did not wish to know.

When I converse with the freest of my neighbors, I perceive that, whatever they may say about the magnitude and seriousness of the question, and their regard for the public tranquillity, the long and the short of the matter is, that they cannot spare the protection of the existing government, and they dread the consequences to their property and families of disobedience to it. For my own part, I should not like to think that I ever rely on the protection of the State. But, if I deny the authority of the State when it presents its tax bill, it will soon take and waste all my property, and so harass me and my children without end. This is hard. This makes it impossible for a man to live honestly, and at the same time comfortably, in outward respects. It will not be worth the while to accumulate property; that would be sure to go again. You must hire or squat somewhere, and raise but a small crop, and eat that soon. You must live within yourself, and depend upon yourself always tucked up and ready for a start, and not have many affairs. A man may grow rich in Turkey even, if he will be in all respects a good subject of the Turkish government. Confucius said: "If a state is governed by the principles of reason, poverty and misery are subjects of shame; if a state is not governed by the principles of reason, riches and honors are subjects of shame." No: until I want the protection of Massachusetts to be extended to me in some distant Southern port, where my liberty is endangered, or until I am bent solely on building up an estate at home by peaceful enterprise, I can afford to refuse allegiance to Massachusetts, and her right to my property and life. It costs me less in every sense to incur the penalty of disobedience to the State than it would to obey. I should feel as if I were worth less in that case.

Some years ago, the State met me in behalf of the Church, and commanded me to pay a certain sum toward the support of a clergyman whose preaching my father attended, but never I myself. "Pay," it said, "or be locked up in the jail." I declined to pay. But, unfortunately, another man saw fit to pay it. I did not see why the schoolmaster should be taxed to support the priest, and not the priest the schoolmaster; for I was not the State's schoolmaster, but I supported myself by voluntary subscription. I did not see why the lyceum should not present its tax bill, and have the State to back its demand, as well as the Church. However, as the request of the selectmen, I condescended to make some such statement as this in writing: "Know all men by these presents, that I, Henry Thoreau, do not wish to be regarded as a member of any society which I have not joined." This I gave to the town clerk; and he has it. The State, having thus learned that I did not wish to be regarded as a member of that church, has never made a like demand on me since; though it said that it must adhere to its original presumption that time. If I had known how to name them, I should then have signed off in detail from all the societies which I never signed on to; but I did not know where to find such a complete list.

I have paid no poll tax for six years. I was put into a jail once on this account, for one night; and, as I stood considering the walls of solid stone, two or three feet thick, the door of wood and iron, a foot thick, and the iron grating which strained the light, I could not help being struck with the foolishness of that institution which treated my as if I were mere flesh and blood and bones, to be locked up. I wondered that it should have concluded at length that this was the best use it could put me to, and had never thought to avail itself of my services in some way. I saw that, if there was a wall of stone between me and my townsmen, there was a still more difficult one to climb or break through before they could get to be as free as I was. I did nor for a moment feel confined, and the walls seemed a great waste of stone and mortar. I felt as if I alone of all my townsmen had paid my tax. They plainly did not know how to treat me, but behaved like persons who are underbred. In every threat and in every compliment there was a blunder; for they thought that my chief desire was to stand the other side of that stone wall. I could not but smile to see how industriously they locked the door on my meditations, which followed them out again without let or hindrance, and they were really all that was dangerous. As they could not reach me, they had resolved to punish my body; just as boys, if they cannot come at some person against whom they have a spite, will abuse his dog. I saw that the State was half-witted, that it was timid as a lone woman with her silver spoons, and that it did not know its friends from its foes, and I lost all my remaining respect for it, and pitied it.

Thus the state never intentionally confronts a man's sense, intellectual or moral, but only his body, his senses. It is not armed with superior with or honesty, but with superior physical strength. I was not born to be forced. I will breathe after my own fashion. Let us see who is the strongest. What force has a multitude? They only can force me who obey a higher law than I. They force me to become like themselves. I do not hear of men being forced to live this way or that by masses of men. What sort of life were that to live? When I meet a government which says to me, "Your money our your life," why should I be in haste to give it my money? It may be in a great strait, and not know what to do: I cannot help that. It must help itself; do as I do. It is not worth the while to snivel about it. I am not responsible for the successful working of the machinery of society. I am not the son of the engineer. I perceive that, when an acorn and a chestnut fall side by side, the one does not remain inert to make way for the other, but both obey their own laws, and spring and grow and flourish as best they can, till one, perchance, overshadows and destroys the other. If a plant cannot live according to nature, it dies; and so a man.

The night in prison was novel and interesting enough. The prisoners in their shirtsleeves were enjoying a chat and the evening air in the doorway, when I entered. But the jailer said, "Come, boys, it is time to lock up"; and so they dispersed, and I heard the sound of their steps returning into the hollow apartments. My room-mate was introduced to me by the jailer as "a first-rate fellow and clever man." When the door was locked, he showed me where to hang my hat, and how he managed matters there. The rooms were whitewashed once a month; and this one, at least, was the whitest, most simply furnished, and probably neatest apartment in town. He naturally wanted to know where I came from, and what brought me there; and, when I had told him, I asked him in my turn how he came there, presuming him to be an honest an, of course; and as the world goes, I believe he was. "Why," said he, "they accuse me of burning a barn; but I never did it." As near as I could discover, he had probably gone to bed in a barn when drunk, and smoked his pipe there; and so a barn was burnt. He had the reputation of being a clever man, had been there some three months waiting for his trial to come on, and would have to wait as much longer; but he was quite domesticated and contented, since he got his board for nothing, and thought that he was well treated.

He occupied one window, and I the other; and I saw that if one stayed there long, his principal business would be to look out the window. I had soon read all the tracts that were left there, and examined where former prisoners had broken out, and where a grate had been sawed off, and heard the history of the various occupants of that room; for I found that even there there was a history and a gossip which never circulated beyond the walls of the jail. Probably this is the only house in the town where verses are composed, which are afterward printed in a circular form, but not published. I was shown quite a long list of young men who had been detected in an attempt to escape, who avenged themselves by singing them.

I pumped my fellow-prisoner as dry as I could, for fear I should never see him again; but at length he showed me which was my bed, and left me to blow out the lamp.

It was like travelling into a far country, such as I had never expected to behold, to lie there for one night. It seemed to me that I never had heard the town clock strike before, not the evening sounds of the village; for we slept with the windows open, which were inside the grating. It was to see my native village in the light of the Middle Ages, and our Concord was turned into a Rhine stream, and visions of knights and castles passed before me. They were the voices of old burghers that I heard in the streets. I was an involuntary spectator and auditor of whatever was done and said in the kitchen of the adjacent village inn--a wholly new and rare experience to me. It was a closer view of my native town. I was fairly inside of it. I never had seen its institutions before. This is one of its peculiar institutions; for it is a shire town. I began to comprehend what its inhabitants were about.

In the morning, our breakfasts were put through the hole in the door, in small oblong-square tin pans, made to fit, and holding a pint of chocolate, with brown bread, and an iron spoon. When they called for the vessels again, I was green enough to return what bread I had left, but my comrade seized it, and said that I should lay that up for lunch or dinner. Soon after he was let out to work at haying in a neighboring field, whither he went every day, and would not be back till noon; so he bade me good day, saying that he doubted if he should see me again.

When I came out of prison--for some one interfered, and paid that tax--I did not perceive that great changes had taken place on the common, such as he observed who went in a youth and emerged a gray-headed man; and yet a change had come to my eyes come over the scene--the town, and State, and country, greater than any that mere time could effect. I saw yet more distinctly the State in which I lived. I saw to what extent the people among whom I lived could be trusted as good neighbors and friends; that their friendship was for summer weather only; that they did not greatly propose to do right; that they were a distinct race from me by their prejudices and superstitions, as the Chinamen and Malays are that in their sacrifices to humanity they ran no risks, not even to their property; that after all they were not so noble but they treated the thief as he had treated them, and hoped, by a certain outward observance and a few prayers, and by walking in a particular straight through useless path from time to time, to save their souls. This may be to judge my neighbors harshly; for I believe that many of them are not aware that they have such an institution as the jail in their village.

It was formerly the custom in our village, when a poor debtor came out of jail, for his acquaintances to salute him, looking through their fingers, which were crossed to represent the jail window, "How do ye do?" My neighbors did not this salute me, but first looked at me, and then at one another, as if I had returned from a long journey. I was put into jail as I was going to the shoemaker's to get a shoe which was mender. When I was let out the next morning, I proceeded to finish my errand, and, having put on my mended show, joined a huckleberry party, who were impatient to put themselves under my conduct; and in half an hour--for the horse was soon tackled--was in the midst of a huckleberry field, on one of our highest hills, two miles off, and then the State was nowhere to be seen.

This is the whole history of "My Prisons."

I have never declined paying the highway tax, because I am as desirous of being a good neighbor as I am of being a bad subject; and as for supporting schools, I am doing my part to educate my fellow countrymen now. It is for no particular item in the tax bill that I refuse to pay it. I simply wish to refuse allegiance to the State, to withdraw and stand aloof from it effectually. I do not care to trace the course of my dollar, if I could, till it buys a man a musket to shoot one with--the dollar is innocent--but I am concerned to trace the effects of my allegiance. In fact, I quietly declare war with the State, after my fashion, though I will still make use and get what advantages of her I can, as is usual in such cases.

If others pay the tax which is demanded of me, from a sympathy with the State, they do but what they have already done in their own case, or rather they abet injustice to a greater extent than the State requires. If they pay the tax from a mistaken interest in the individual taxed, to save his property, or prevent his going to jail, it is because they have not considered wisely how far they let their private feelings interfere with the public good.

This, then is my position at present. But one cannot be too much on his guard in such a case, lest his actions be biased by obstinacy or an undue regard for the opinions of men. Let him see that he does only what belongs to himself and to the hour.

I think sometimes, Why, this people mean well, they are only ignorant; they would do better if they knew how: why give your neighbors this pain to treat you as they are not inclined to? But I think again, This is no reason why I should do as they do, or permit others to suffer much greater pain of a different kind. Again, I sometimes say to myself, When many millions of men, without heat, without ill will, without personal feelings of any kind, demand of you a few shillings only, without the possibility, such is their constitution, of retracting or altering their present demand, and without the possibility, on your side, of appeal to any other millions, why expose yourself to this overwhelming brute force? You do not resist cold and hunger, the winds and the waves, thus obstinately; you quietly submit to a thousand similar necessities. You do not put your head into the fire. But just in proportion as I regard this as not wholly a brute force, but partly a human force, and consider that I have relations to those millions as to so many millions of men, and not of mere brute or inanimate things, I see that appeal is possible, first and instantaneously, from them to the Maker of them, and, secondly, from them to themselves. But if I put my head deliberately into the fire, there is no appeal to fire or to the Maker for fire, and I have only myself to blame. If I could convince myself that I have any right to be satisfied with men as they are, and to treat them accordingly, and not according, in some respects, to my requisitions and expectations of what they and I ought to be, then, like a good Mussulman and fatalist, I should endeavor to be satisfied with things as they are, and say it is the will of God. And, above all, there is this difference between resisting this and a purely brute or natural force, that I can resist this with some effect; but I cannot expect, like Orpheus, to change the nature of the rocks and trees and beasts.

I do not wish to quarrel with any man or nation. I do not wish to split hairs, to make fine distinctions, or set myself up as better than my neighbors. I seek rather, I may say, even an excuse for conforming to the laws of the land. I am but too ready to conform to them. Indeed, I have reason to suspect myself on this head; and each year, as the tax-gatherer comes round, I find myself disposed to review the acts and position of the general and State governments, and the spirit of the people to discover a pretext for conformity.

"We must affect our country as our parents, And if at any time we alienate Out love or industry from doing it honor, We must respect effects and teach the soul Matter of conscience and religion, And not desire of rule or benefit."

I believe that the State will soon be able to take all my work of this sort out of my hands, and then I shall be no better patriot than my fellow-countrymen. Seen from a lower point of view, the Constitution, with all its faults, is very good; the law and the courts are very respectable; even this State and this American government are, in many respects, very admirable, and rare things, to be thankful for, such as a great many have described them; seen from a higher still, and the highest, who shall say what they are, or that they are worth looking at or thinking of at all?

However, the government does not concern me much, and I shall bestow the fewest possible thoughts on it. It is not many moments that I live under a government, even in this world. If a man is thought-free, fancy-free, imagination-free, that which is not never for a long time appearing to be to him, unwise rulers or reformers cannot fatally interrupt him.

I know that most men think differently from myself; but those whose lives are by profession devoted to the study of these or kindred subjects content me as little as any. Statesmen and legislators, standing so completely within the institution, never distinctly and nakedly behold it. They speak of moving society, but have no resting-place without it. They may be men of a certain experience and discrimination, and have no doubt invented ingenious and even useful systems, for which we sincerely thank them; but all their wit and usefulness lie within certain not very wide limits. They are wont to forget that the world is not governed by policy and expediency. Webster never goes behind government, and so cannot speak with authority about it. His words are wisdom to those legislators who contemplate no essential reform in the existing government; but for thinkers, and those who legislate for all tim, he never once glances at the subject. I know of those whose serene and wise speculations on this theme would soon reveal the limits of his mind's range and hospitality. Yet, compared with the cheap professions of most reformers, and the still cheaper wisdom an eloquence of politicians in general, his are almost the only sensible and valuable words, and we thank Heaven for him. Comparatively, he is always strong, original, and, above all, practical. Still, his quality is not wisdom, but prudence. The lawyer's truth is not Truth, but consistency or a consistent expediency. Truth is always in harmony with herself, and is not concerned chiefly to reveal the justice that may consist with wrong-doing. He well deserves to be called, as he has been called, the Defender of the Constitution. There are really no blows to be given him but defensive ones. He is not a leader, but a follower. His leaders are the men of '87. "I have never made an effort," he says, "and never propose to make an effort; I have never countenanced an effort, and never mean to countenance an effort, to disturb the arrangement as originally made, by which various States came into the Union." Still thinking of the sanction which the Constitution gives to slavery, he says, "Because it was part of the original compact--let it stand." Notwithstanding his special acuteness and ability, he is unable to take a fact out of its merely political relations, and behold it as it lies absolutely to be disposed of by the intellect--what, for instance, it behooves a man to do here in American today with regard to slavery--but ventures, or is driven, to make some such desperate answer to the following, while professing to speak absolutely, and as a private man--from which what new and singular of social duties might be inferred? "The manner," says he, "in which the governments of the States where slavery exists are to regulate it is for their own consideration, under the responsibility to their constituents, to the general laws of propriety, humanity, and justice, and to God. Associations formed elsewhere, springing from a feeling of humanity, or any other cause, have nothing whatever to do with it. They have never received any encouragement from me and they never will. [These extracts have been inserted since the lecture was read -HDT]

They who know of no purer sources of truth, who have traced up its stream no higher, stand, and wisely stand, by the Bible and the Constitution, and drink at it there with reverence and humanity; but they who behold where it comes trickling into this lake or that pool, gird up their loins once more, and continue their pilgrimage toward its fountainhead.

No man with a genius for legislation has appeared in America. They are rare in the history of the world. There are orators, politicians, and eloquent men, by the thousand; but the speaker has not yet opened his mouth to speak who is capable of settling the much-vexed questions of the day. We love eloquence for its own sake, and not for any truth which it may utter, or any heroism it may inspire. Our legislators have not yet learned the comparative value of free trade and of freed, of union, and of rectitude, to a nation. They have no genius or talent for comparatively humble questions of taxation and finance, commerce and manufactures and agriculture. If we were left solely to the wordy wit of legislators in Congress for our guidance, uncorrected by the seasonable experience and the effectual complaints of the people, America would not long retain her rank among the nations. For eighteen hundred years, though perchance I have no right to say it, the New Testament has been written; yet where is the legislator who has wisdom and practical talent enough to avail himself of the light which it sheds on the science of legislation.

He was an american resident, the rights apply to him.


"Resident" and citizen are two very different things. Illegal aliens "reside" in the US but they aren't citizens.

The authority of government, even such as I am willing to submit to--for I will cheerfully obey those who know and can do better than I, and in many things even those who neither know nor can do so well--is still an impure one: to be strictly just, it must have the sanction and consent of the governed. It can have no pure right over my person and property but what I concede to it. The progress from an absolute to a limited monarchy, from a limited monarchy to a democracy, is a progress toward a true respect for the individual. Even the Chinese philosopher was wise enough to regard the individual as the basis of the empire. Is a democracy, such as we know it, the last improvement possible in government? Is it not possible to take a step further towards recognizing and organizing the rights of man? There will never be a really free and enlightened State until the State comes to recognize the individual as a higher and independent power, from which all its own power and authority are derived, and treats him accordingly. I please myself with imagining a State at last which can afford to be just to all men, and to treat the individual with respect as a neighbor; which even would not think it inconsistent with its own repose if a few were to live aloof from it, not meddling with it, nor embraced by it, who fulfilled all the duties of neighbors and fellow men. A State which bore this kind of fruit, and suffered it to drop off as fast as it ripened, would prepare the way for a still more perfect and glorious State, which I have also imagined, but not yet anywhere seen.

"Resident" and citizen are two very different things. Illegal aliens "reside" in the US but they aren't citizens.

He was a legal american resident. The rights apply to him.

This may help:

What happens to a tourist that is caught shoplifting?

I would like someone to clarify this. If I, as a British subject, broke the law when in the US, say, by getting into a barfight, then I would have no legal rights when arressted? No right to a lawyer, no right to silence? That is what some people here seem to be saying. I fiind this very hard to believe.

Edit; You got there before me!

I would like someone to clarify this. If I, as a British subject, broke the law when in the US, say, by getting into a barfight, then I would have no legal rights when arressted? No right to a lawyer, no right to silence? That is what some people here seem to be saying. I fiind this very hard to believe.

Edit; You got there before me!
you would have all the same rights as american citizens do. you cant be forced to testify against yourself, you cant be given a cruel or unusual punishment, you have the right to a speedy trial with a jury of your peers.

you may even have some extra rights depending on treaties with your country. for example, if you were here in a diplomatic passport we would either overlook your crime or revoke your right to be here.

There's this guy being held by the US government, name of Ali Saleh Kahlah al-Marri, is much the same position as Jose Padilla was until the Bush Justice department decided to end-run the Constitution and finally charge him rather than let the Supreme Court get hold of their bullshit "enemy combatant" rule.

Here's the story. (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/05/08/AR2006050801469.html)

I quoted the whole article because I didn't want to be accused of selectively quoting and it was short anyway, but look at that bolded part again. What the fuck? What happened to "innocent until proven guilty?" What happened to the necessity of the government proving its case? What happened to the ability of a defendant to not put on a defense if the prosecution didn't do its damn job?

What the fuck has happened to my goddamn country that this isn't on the front page and people aren't outraged about it?
We routinely hold offenders awaiting trial with no bail. If you are arrested for murder, you are held until trial is done if your crime is serious enough and if you are a flight risk. This guy's crime - conspiracy to commit terrorism - is pretty serious, and since he's not even an American citizen he's an obvious flight risk. I have no problem with this.

We routinely hold offenders awaiting trial with no bail. If you are arrested for murder, you are held until trial is done if your crime is serious enough and if you are a flight risk. This guy's crime - conspiracy to commit terrorism - is pretty serious, and since he's not even an American citizen he's an obvious flight risk. I have no problem with this.

But generally when we do this, isn't the person awaiting trial still charged?

Unquestioning faith in your government is a dangerous thing.

No faith in your government is a dangerous thing.

We routinely hold offenders awaiting trial with no bail. If you are arrested for murder, you are held until trial is done if your crime is serious enough and if you are a flight risk. This guy's crime - conspiracy to commit terrorism - is pretty serious, and since he's not even an American citizen he's an obvious flight risk. I have no problem with this.
We only hold prisoners for trial for the minimum time needed to push them through the system and found guilty or not. Detaining a person “Awaiting trial” for an indefinite period of time is illegal as well.

Just so we can all speak intelligently about this. The guy comes into the US, promptly steals Social Security numbers and gets fake IDs and uses them to open three bank accounts in one day. Then, he makes phone calls from his phone card to Mustafa Ahmed al-Hawsawi, a well known Al Qeada financier and the person responsible for getting money to the 9/11 hijackers. When he is initially interviewed at his apartment he lies and says he came into the country the day before 9/11 when he had actually been here setting up fake bank accounts since at least 2000. After the attacks, this guy, from his cell phone, made severalk calls to al-Hawsawi, the same guy who Mohammed Atta made several calls to and who opened a bank account into which all of the hijackers emptied their accounts the day before 9/11. When they arrested this guy they found messages from Osama Bin Laden and detailed notes on how to make cianide gas on his computer. Read this. This guy's case is tight.

COUNT I

1. On or about October 2, 2001, in the Central District of Illinois, ALI SALEH KAHLAH AL-MARRI, a/k/a "Abdullakareem A. Almuslam," the defendant, in a matter within the jurisdiction of the executive branch of the United States, unlawfully, willfully, and knowingly falsified, concealed, and covered up by trick, scheme, and device a material fact, and made a materially false, fictitious, and fraudulent statement and representation, to wit, AL-MARRI falsely informed an agent of the Federal Bureau of Investigation ("FBI") that AL-MARRI had not entered the United States between 1991 and September 10, 2001.

(Title 18, United States Code, Section 1001.)

COUNT 2

2. On or about December 11, 2001, in the Central District of Illinois, ALI SALEH KAHLAH AL-MARRI, a/k/a "Abdullakareem A. Almuslam," the defendant, in a matter within the jurisdiction of the executive branch of the United States, unlawfully, willfully, and knowingly falsified, concealed, and covered up by trick, scheme, and device a material fact, and made a materially false, fictitious, and fraudulent statement and representation, to wit, AL-MARRI falsely informed an agent of the FBI that AL-MARRI had not called a telephone number in the United Arab Emirates associated with Mustafa Ahmed al-Hawsawi.

(Title 18, United States Code, Section 1001.)

COUNT 3

3. On or about July 21, 2000, in the Central District of Illinois, ALI SALEH KAHLAH AL-MARRI, a/k/a "Abdullakareem A. Almuslam," the defendant, unlawfully, willfully, and knowingly made a false statement and report, for the purpose of influencing the action of an institution the accounts of which were insured by the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, upon an application, to wit, AL-MARRI provided a false name and stolen Social Security number in connection with an account application at Citizen's National Bank in Macomb, Illinois.

(Title 18, United States Code, Section 1014.)

COUNT 4

4. On or about August 3, 2000, in the Central District of Illinois, ALI SALEH KAHLAH AL-MARRI, a/k/a "Abdullakareem A. Almuslam," the defendant, unlawfully, willfully, and knowingly made a false statement and report, for the purpose of influencing the action of an institution the accounts of which were insured by the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, upon an application, to wit, AL-MARRI provided a false name and stolen Social Security number in connection with an account application at the First Federal Bank in Macomb, Illinois.

(Title 18, United States Code, Section 1014.)

COUNT 5

5. On or about August 3, 2000, in the Central District of Illinois, ALI SALEH KAHLAH AL-MARRI, a/k/a "Abdullakareem A. Almuslam," the defendant, unlawfully, willfully, and knowingly made a false statement and report, for the purpose of influencing the action of an institution the accounts of which were insured by the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, upon an application, to wit, AL-MARRI provided a false name and stolen Social Security number in connection with an account application at Mid-America National Bank in Macomb, Illinois.

(Title 18, United States Code, Section 1014.)

COUNT 6

6. In or about July 2000 through in or about August 2000, in the Central District of Illinois and elsewhere, ALI SALEH KAHLAH AL-MARRI, a/k/a "Abdullakareem A. Almuslam," the defendant, unlawfully, willfully, and knowingly used, without lawful authority, a means of identification of another person with the intent to commit an unlawful activity that constitutes a violation of Federal law, to wit, AL-MARRI used a stolen Social Security number that was not issued in his name to file false account applications with three banks in Macomb, Illinois, in violation of Title 18, United States Code, Section 1014.

(Title 18, United States Code, Section 1028(a)(7))

The bases for my knowledge and for the foregoing charges are, in part, as follows:

7. I am a Special Agent with the FBI, and I have been personally involved in the investigation of this matter. This affidavit is based upon my conversations with other law enforcement agents and upon my examination of various transcripts, reports, and records. Because this affidavit is being submitted for the limited purpose of establishing probable cause for the offenses cited above, it does not include all of the facts that have been learned during the course of the investigation. Where the contents of documents or statements of others are reported herein, they are reported in substance and in part, unless otherwise indicated.

The September 11 Terrorist Attacks

8. On Tuesday, September 11, 2001, in a series of coordinated attacks, terrorists attacked the World Trade Center ("WTC") in lower Manhattan in New York City and the Pentagon in Arlington, Virginia (the "September 11 Attacks"). The attack plan included, among other things, the hijacking of four commercial airliners: (a) American Airlines Flight 11 ("AA11"), a Boeing 767, which departed Logan Airport in Boston, Massachusetts, at approximately 7:45 a.m., en route to Los Angeles, California; (b) United Airlines Flight 175 ("UA175"), a Boeing 767, which departed Logan Airport at approximately 8:00 a.m., en route to Los Angeles, California; (c) American Airlines Flight 77 ("AA77"), a Boeing 757, which departed Dulles Airport in Washington, D.C., at approximately 8:20 a.m., en route for Los Angeles, California; and (d) United Airlines Flight 93 ("UA93"), a Boeing 757, which departed Newark Airport in Newark, New Jersey, at approximately 8:42 a.m., en route to San Francisco, California.

9. At approximately 8:45 a.m., AA11 was flown into the North Tower of the WTC. Approximately twenty minutes later, UA175 was flown into the South Tower of the WTC. Within approximately 50 minutes, the South Tower collapsed. The North Tower followed, collapsing at approximately 10:25 a.m. The attack on the Twin Towers resulted in the murders of thousands of people and the destruction of several additional buildings in the complex.

10. At approximately 9:40 a.m., AA77 was crashed into the Pentagon. A large portion of the building was destroyed, collapsing at approximately 10:10 a.m. The attack resulted in the murders of hundreds of people.

11. At approximately 10:10 a.m., UA93 was crash landed in Somerset County, Pennsylvania, killing all aboard.

The Initial Interview Of Al-Marri

12. In connection with the investigation into the SeptemberÊ11 Attacks, on or about October 2, 2001, another FBI agent and I interviewed ALI SALEH KAHLAH AL-MARRI, a/k/a "Abdullakareem A. Almuslam," the defendant, at his apartment in Peoria, Illinois. During the interview, AL-MARRI stated, among other things, that he is a Qatari national and that he had been in the United States since September 10, 2001. AL-MARRI also stated that he possessed a student visa issued by the United States and that he was studying for a master's degree in computer information systems at Bradley University in Peoria, Illinois.

13. During the October 2, 2001 interview, I asked AL-MARRI when he had previously traveled to the United States. AL-MARRI responded that, prior to his arrival in the United States on September 10, 2001, he had last been in the United States from approximately 1983 to 1991, when he obtained a bachelor of science degree from Bradley University.

The Moussaoui Indictment and Mustafa Ahmed al-Hawsawi


14. On or about December 11, 2001, an Indictment was unsealed in the Eastern District of Virginia, charging Zacarias Moussaoui, a/k/a "Shaqil," a/k/a "Abu Khalid al Sahrawi," with Conspiracy to Commit Acts of Terrorism Transcending National Boundaries (18 U.S.C. §§ 2332b(a)(2) & (c)), Conspiracy to Commit Aircraft Piracy (49 U.S.C. §§ 46502(a)(1)(A) and (a)(2)(B)), Conspiracy to Destroy Aircraft (18 U.S.C. §§ 32(a)(7) & 34), Conspiracy to Use Weapons of Mass Destruction (18 U.S.C. § 2332a(a)), Conspiracy to Murder United States Employees (18 U.S.C. §§ 1114 & 1117), and Conspiracy to Destroy Property, (18 U.S.C. §§ 844(f), (i), (n)), all relating to the September 11 Attacks. The Moussaoui Indictment names, among others, Mustafa Ahmed al-Hawsawi, a/k/a "Mustafa Ahmed," a/k/a "Hashem Abdollahi" (hereinafter "al-Hawsawi"), as an unindicted co-conspirator. The Moussaoui Indictment alleges numerous connections between al-Hawsawi and various of the alleged hijackers. The Moussaoui Indictment alleges, for example, that:

a. On June 25, 2001, al-Hawsawi used a cash deposit to open a checking account at a Standard Chartered Bank branch in Dubai, United Arab Emirates (hereinafter "UAE").

b. On June 25, 2001, at the same Standard Chartered Bank branch in Dubai, UAE, Fayez Ahmed, alleged to be a hijacker of UA175, used a cash deposit to open a savings account and also opened a checking account.

c. On July 18, 2001, Fayez Ahmed gave power of attorney to al-Hawsawi for Fayez Ahmed's Standard Chartered Bank accounts in the UAE.

d. Between July 18 and August 1, 2001, al-Hawsawi caused Fayez Ahmed's VISA and ATM cards to be shipped from the UAE to Fayez Ahmed in Florida.

e. On September 8, 2001, Mohammed Atta, alleged to be a hijacker of AA11, wired $2,860 to "Mustafa Ahmed" in the UAE.

f. On September 8, 2001, Mohammed Atta wired $5,000 to "Mustafa Ahmed" in the UAE.

g. On September 9, 2001, Waleed M. al-Shehri, alleged to be another hijacker of AA11, wired $5,000 to "Ahamad Mustafa" in the UAE.

h. On September 10, 2001, Marwan al-Shehhi, alleged to be another hijacker of UA175, wired $5,400 to "Mustafa Ahmad" in the UAE.

i. On September 11, 2001, in the UAE, approximately $16,348 was deposited into al-Hawsawi's Standard Chartered Bank account.

j. On September 11, 2001, in the UAE, at approximately 9:22 a.m. local time (the early morning hours of Eastern Daylight Time), al-Hawsawi transferred approximately $6,500 of the approximately $8,055 in Fayez Ahmed's Standard Chartered Bank accounts into his own account, using a check dated September 10, 2001, and apparently signed by Fayez Ahmed. Al-Hawsawi then withdrew approximately $1,361, nearly the entire remaining balance in Fayez Ahmed's accounts, by ATM cash withdrawal.

k. On September 11, 2001, in the UAE, approximately $40,871 was prepaid to a VISA card connected to Al-Hawsawi's Standard Chartered Bank account.

l. On September 11, 2001, al-Hawsawi left the UAE for Pakistan.

Al-Hawsawi and the UAE Telephone Number


15. I have spoken with other agents, who have advised me of the following information regarding a telephone number used by al-Hawsawi in the UAE (hereinafter "the UAE Telephone Number"):

a. On or about September 8, 2001, al-Hawsawi provided the UAE Telephone Number on a cash withdrawal slip from his account at the Standard Chartered Bank in the UAE.

b. On or about September 4, 2001, Mohammed Atta sent a federal express package that was later received in the UAE on or about September 8, 2001. The package was addressed to "Almohtaram," which is Arabic for "the respected one," and Atta gave to Federal Express the UAE Telephone Number as the point of contact for the recipient.

c. A telephone calling card known to have been in the possession of Mohammed Atta was used to make telephone calls to the UAE Telephone Number.

d. The UAE Telephone Number was used by "Hashem Abdollahi," which is believed to be another name used by al-Hawsawi, on a September 3, 2001 wire transfer to Ramzi Bin al-Shibh, a/k/a "Ahad Sabet," a/k/a "Ramzi Mohamed Abdellah Omar," another unindicted co-conspirator named in the Moussaoui Indictment.

AL-MARRI's Calls to the UAE Telephone Number


16. I have learned the following from other federal agents and from my own review of telephone records:

a. On or about September 23, 2001, a telephone call was attempted from a pay telephone in a store in Peoria, Illinois, to the UAE Telephone Number, using a calling card and dedicated pin number issued by Network IP (hereinafter "the Network IP Calling Card and Pin Number").

b. On or about September 27, 2001, a telephone call was attempted from a cellular telephone subscribed to by ALI SALEH KAHLAH AL-MARRI, a/k/a "Abdullakareem A. Almuslam," the defendant (the "AL-MARRI CELLPHONE"), using the Network IP Calling Card and Pin Number.

c. On or about October 14, 2001, between 1:42 a.m. and 1:52 a.m., a telephone call was attempted from a pay telephone in a gas station in Springfield, Illinois, (1) to the UAE Telephone Number, using the Network IP Calling Card and Pin Number. At approximately 1:08 a.m. on October 14, 2001, the AL-MARRI CELLPHONE was activated in a cell site located in Lincoln, Illinois, approximately 20 miles north of Springfield. (2) At approximately 2:15 a.m. on October 14, 2001, the AL-MARRI CELLPHONE was activated in a cell site located in Springfield.

d. On or about October 24, 2001, a telephone call was made from a telephone subscribed to by AL-MARRI in AL-MARRI's Peoria, Illinois apartment (the "AL-MARRI HOME PHONE") to a telephone number in Houston, Texas, using the Network IP Calling Card and Pin Number.

17. I have also learned the following from other federal agents:

a. On or about November 4, 2001, telephone calls were attempted from two pay telephones in Chicago, Illinois, to the UAE Telephone Number and to telephone numbers in Pakistan and Saudi Arabia, using a calling card and dedicated pin number issued by Qwest Communications (hereinafter "the Qwest Calling Card and Pin Number"). (3) Between 1:29 a.m. and 5:18 p.m. on November 4, 2001, the AL-MARRI CELLPHONE was activated in cell sites located in Chicago and, in particular, was used to check the voice mail on the AL-MARRI CELLPHONE and to call the AL-MARRI HOME PHONE in Peoria.

b. On or about November 7, 2001, telephone calls were made from the AL-MARRI HOME PHONE using the Qwest Calling Card and Pin Number.

The Second Interview of AL-MARRI and the Searches


18. On or about December 11, 2001, after the FBI performed the telephone analysis described above, another agent and I revisited ALI SALEH KAHLAH AL-MARRI, a/k/a "Abdullakareem A. Almuslam," the defendant, at his Peoria, Illinois apartment. We asked him to come to the Peoria, Illinois office of the FBI to answer some additional questions. AL-MARRI agreed. In addition, we asked AL-MARRI for permission to search his apartment. AL-MARRI consented to the search. During this search, we found, among other things, a laptop computer. I asked AL-MARRI for consent to search the laptop. AL-MARRI gave his consent and retrieved a laptop computer carrying case that was in his closet. AL-MARRI then put the laptop computer in the carrying case.

19. During the interview that was conducted later on December 11, 2001, ALI SALEH KAHLAH AL-MARRI, a/k/a "Abdullakareem A. Almuslam," the defendant, stated the following, in substance and in part:

a. AL-MARRI denied knowing anyone named Mustafa Ahmed al-Hawsawi and denied ever calling the UAE Telephone Number or anyone associated with that telephone number.

b. AL-MARRI acknowledged that he had telephoned an individual in Houston, Texas (the "Houston Resident"). The Houston Resident is the registered subscriber to the Houston, Texas telephone number to which a telephone call was made, on or about October 24, 2001, from the AL-MARRI HOME PHONE using the Network IP Calling Card and Pin Number. (See supra º 16(d)).

c. AL-MARRI stated that he had not traveled to any countries other than Qatar, Saudi Arabia, and the United States.

20. On December 12, 2001, an FBI computer systems analyst, with whom I have spoken, opened the computer carrying case provided to the FBI the day before by ALI SALEH KAHLAH AL-MARRI, a/k/a "Abdullakareem A. Almuslam," the defendant, and found, among other things, a folded two-page handwritten document that listed approximately 36 credit card numbers together with the names of the account holders, an indication as to whether each credit card number was VISA or Mastercard, and the expiration dates of each card. The expiration dates on the list indicated that each of the cards had expired. AL-MARRI was not listed as the account holder for any of the approximately 36 credit cards. Approximately 17 of the 36 credit card numbers appeared to be issued by domestic banks. I have learned from other agents that records from the issuing domestic banks showed that the approximately 17 domestically issued credit card numbers were either once or currently valid, and that they were issued to persons other than AL-MARRI. (4) In addition, during their search of AL-MARRI's laptop computer, the FBI computer systems analysts found:

a. An Arabic oath or prayer, which states, among other things, that "[n]either the U.S. nor anyone living in it will dream of security/safety before we live it in Palestine and before the infidel armies leave the land of Mohammed," and that God should "protect" and "guard" Usama Bin Laden.

b. Computer audio files containing Arabic lectures by Usama bin Laden and his associates, concerning, among other things, the importance of jihad and martyrdom and the merits of the Taliban regime in Afghanistan. The lectures instructed, among other things, that Muslim scholars shouldorganize opposition to Jewish and Christian control of "Palestine," Lebanon, and Saudi Arabia; that ordinary Muslims should train in Bin Laden's camps in Afghanistan by entering through Pakistan; and that clerics who claim that Islam is a religion of peace should be disregarded.

c. Photographs of the September 11 Attacks on the World Trade Center; photographs of various Arab prisoners held by authorities in Kabul, Afghanistan; and a map of Afghanistan.

d. Computer files containing lists of websites that are titled, among other things, "Jihad arena"; "Taliban"; "Arab's new club - Jihad club"; "Tunes by bullets"; and "martyrs."

e. A computer folder called "chem" containing favorite bookmarked internet web sites, including sites providing factsheets for hazardous substances and other sites providing the amounts of certain hazardous chemicals that are "immediately dangerous to life or health." (5) The folder also contains websites designed for the acquisition of industrial chemicals.

f. Other computer folders containing additional favorite bookmarked internet web sites, including sites relating to weaponry and satellite equipment.

g. Computer files containing an aggregate of over approximately 1,000 apparent credit card numbers, stored in various computer files, as well as a list of numerous favorite bookmarked internet web sites relating to, among other things, computer hacking, fake driver's licenses and other fake identification cards, buying and selling credit card numbers, and processing credit card transactions. Preliminary examination of records for the approximately 1,000 credit card numbers found on AL-MARRI's computer has confirmed that the majority of these cards have been subjected to fraud.

21. On or about December 14, 2001, other agents and I searched the apartment of ALI SALEH KAHLAH AL-MARRI, a/k/a "Abdullakareem A. Almuslam," the defendant, pursuant to a search warrant authorized by a United States Magistrate Judge sitting in the Central District of Illinois. During the search, we found, among other things: (a) an Arabic prayer seeking, among other things, the defeat of the "villainous" Christians and Jews, and victory for Muslims in "Palestine," Afghanistan, Kashmir, and Chechnya (6); and (b) an almanac with bookmarks in pages that provided information about major United States dams, reservoirs, waterways, and railroads.

"Abdullakareem A. Almuslam" and AL-MARRI's August 2000 Visit to the United States


22. I have reviewed the reports of FBI analysts who have examined the credit card numbers found in the laptop carrying case and on the laptop computer belonging to ALI SALEH KAHLAH AL-MARRI, a/k/a "Abdullakareem A. Almuslam," the defendant. From these reports, I have learned the following:

a. Several of the credit card numbers found in AL-MARRI's possession had been used to make fraudulent purchases at a business called "AAA Carpet."

b. AAA Carpet is a fictitious entity with no actual physical location. The address provided for AAA Carpet is actually that of the Time Out Motel, Room 209, in Macomb, Illinois.

c. In or about July and August 2000, several bank accounts in Macomb, Illinois, were opened for AAA Carpet by an individual identifying himself as "Abdullakareem A. Almuslam." Specifically, "Almuslam" opened accounts for AAA Carpet at three banks in Macomb -- Citizen's National Bank, First Federal Bank, and Mid-America National Bank (the "AAA Carpet Accounts"). In addition, "Almuslam" opened an account with Card Services International, a credit card processing company, which allowed AAA Carpet to process credit card transactions.

d. According to Card Services International records, 12 credit cards were charged by AAA Carpet during the period that AAA Carpet's account with Card Services International was active, purportedly for services rendered by AAA Carpet. All 12 transactions were later voided when the credit card account holders advised that they had not authorized any charges to their credit cards by AAA Carpet. Six of the 12 credit card numbers that were charged fraudulently by AAA Carpet were later found on the laptop computer of ALI SALEH KAHLAH AL-MARRI, a/k/a "Abdullakareem A. Almuslam," the defendant.

23. In connection with his applications for the AAA Carpet Accounts, "Almuslam" provided a home address that corresponded to the Time Out Motel in Macomb, Illinois. I have reviewed records from the Time Out Motel, which show that an individual identifying himself as "Abdullakareem Almuslam" stayed at the hotel from July 2000 to August 2000. In addition, on or about October 22, 2002, I visited the hotel and spoke with an employee of the hotel. I showed the employee a photographic array containing a picture of ALI SALEH KAHLAH AL-MARRI, a/k/a "Abdullakareem A. Almuslam," the defendant, and the employee identified AL-MARRI as the individual who had stayed at the Time Out Motel in July and August 2000 under the name "Abdullakareem Almuslam."

24. I have also obtained the signature cards and account opening documents (the "Bank Documents") from the three banks in Macomb at which "Almuslam" opened the AAA Carpet Accounts. In addition, I have obtained a handwriting exemplar from ALI SALEH KAHLAH AL-MARRI, a/k/a "Abdullakareem A. Almuslam," the defendant, of his signature. The signature used by "Almuslam" in the Bank Documents appears similar to AL-MARRI's signature.

25. In addition, I sent the Bank Documents to the FBI laboratory for examination. Latent print analysis of these documents resulted in at least three positive fingerprint identifications for the fingerprints of ALI SALEH KAHLAH AL-MARRI, a/k/a "Abdullakareem A. Almuslam," the defendant.

26. I have obtained the telephone toll records from the Time Out Motel for the room occupied by "Almuslam." These records reflect a telephone call from the "Almuslam" room to the Travel Company, a travel agency in Macomb, Illinois. I also have obtained records from the Travel Company, which show that, on August 17, 2000, the Travel Company made an airline reservation for an "Ali Al-Marri" for travel on August 18, 2000, from Peoria, Illinois, to New York, New York, with return to Peoria, all on American Airlines. According to records from American Airlines, a passenger named "Ali Al-Marri" traveled from Peoria to Chicago's O'Hare Airport, and then to New York's LaGuardia Airport on or about August 18, 2000. This "Al-Marri" then returned from New York to Chicago on August 19, 2000, but did not connect with his flight to Peoria.

27. The telephone toll records for the "Almuslam" room at the Time Out Motel also showed a telephone call from that room to Lufthansa Airlines on August 17, 2000. According to records of Lufthansa Airlines, a passenger named "Ali S. Al-Marri" used Lufthansa Airlines on or about August 21, 2000, to travel from Frankfurt, Germany, with a connection to Dahmam, Saudi Arabia. This "Ali S. Al-Marri" also traveled on Lufthansa on or about May 25-26, 2000, from Dahmam, Saudi Arabia, to Frankfurt, Germany, and on to Chicago's O'Hare Airport.

28. Based on the investigation described above in paragraphs 18 through 27, I believe that ALI SALEH KAHLAH AL-MARRI, the defendant, is the "Abdullakareem A. Almuslam" who opened the AAA Carpet Accounts.

29. In opening the AAA Carpet Accounts, ALI SALEH KAHLAH AL-MARRI, a/k/a "Abdullakareem A. Almuslam," the defendant, used a Social Security number that is not assigned to AL-MARRI but, according to a law enforcement database, is instead assigned to a woman.

30. I also have contacted the three banks identified above -- Citizen's National Bank, First Federal Bank, and Mid-America National Bank. The accounts of all three banks are insured by the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation.

The Non-Immigrant Visa Application


31. 31. Finally, in connection with my investigation, I have obtained the Non-Immigrant Visa Application (the "Visa Application") completed, on or about September 9, 2001, by AL-MARRI prior to his entry into the United States. In the Visa Application, AL-MARRI answered "yes" to the question "Have you ever been in the U.S.A." In response to the question "When," he stated "1990," and in response to the question "For how long?" he answered "8 months."

WHEREFORE, deponent prays that an arrest warrant be issued and that the defendant be imprisoned or bailed as the case may be.




___________________________________
NICOLAS A. ZAMBECK
Special Agent
Federal Bureau of Investigation


Sworn to before me this
____ day of December 2002.



_______________________________
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE





1. Springfield is located approximately 65 miles from Peoria, Illinois.

2. I am aware that cellular telephone networks are divided into grids of "cells," each of which contain transmitters and receivers for cellphone signals that connect a cellphone to the network. When a cellphone is used or activated, it generally transmits its signals to the nearest cell, and law enforcement can obtain the location of the cell site in which a particular cellphone is activated.

3. Chicago is located approximately 165 miles from Peoria, Illinois.

4. On December 12, 2001, AL-MARRI was arrested as a material witness in connection with the investigation of the September 11 Attacks. AL-MARRI was subsequently indicted by a grand jury sitting in this District for the unauthorized possession of 15 or more access devices -- credit card numbers -- with the intent to defraud, in violation of Title 18, United States Code, Section 1029(a)(3). That case, 02 Cr. 147 (VM), is currently pending before the Honorable Victor Marrero, and trial is set for January 13, 2003.

5. The "immediately dangerous to life or health," or "IDLH," value, is a recognized standard published by the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health ("NIOSH"), which is part of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention ("CDC"). The IDLH value refers to the concentration at which a toxic chemical becomes hazardous to life or health.

6. I have been advised that all translations and descriptions of Arabic documents and files contained herein were provided by FBI or other federally employed interpreters.

But generally when we do this, isn't the person awaiting trial still charged?
He is charged. I just posted the indictment.

Just so we can all speak intelligently about this. The guy comes into the US, promptly steals Social Security numbers and gets fake IDs and uses them to open three bank accounts in one day. Then, he makes phone calls from his phone card to Mustafa Ahmed al-Hawsawi, a well known Al Qeada financier and the person responsible for getting money to the 9/11 hijackers. When he is initially interviewed at his apartment he lies and says he came into the country the day before 9/11 when he had actually been here setting up fake bank accounts since at least 2000. After the attacks, this guy, from his cell phone, made severalk calls to al-Hawsawi, the same guy who Mohammed Atta made several calls to and who opened a bank account into which all of the hijackers emptied their accounts the day before 9/11. When they arrested this guy they found messages from Osama Bin Laden and detailed notes on how to make cianide gas on his computer. Read this. This guy's case is tight.


I'd say the easiest thing to do would be to put him aboard a C-141 bound for Iraq from the US, and somewhere over the Atlantic Ocean, throw him out at 34,000 feet without a parachute.

Problem solved.

Just so we can all speak intelligently about this. The guy comes into the US, promptly steals Social Security numbers and gets fake IDs and uses them to open three bank accounts in one day. Then, he makes phone calls from his phone card to Mustafa Ahmed al-Hawsawi, a well known Al Qeada financier and the person responsible for getting money to the 9/11 hijackers. When he is initially interviewed at his apartment he lies and says he came into the country the day before 9/11 when he had actually been here setting up fake bank accounts since at least 2000. After the attacks, this guy, from his cell phone, made severalk calls to al-Hawsawi, the same guy who Mohammed Atta made several calls to and who opened a bank account into which all of the hijackers emptied their accounts the day before 9/11. When they arrested this guy they found messages from Osama Bin Laden and detailed notes on how to make cianide gas on his computer. Read this. This guy's case is tight.

*Claps*

*Pumps fist in air and cheers*

*feels like a total homo for typing *pumps fist in air**

meh Americas corporate empire is in decline and soon china will rule so i call upon all americans to re-patriotise and become chinese

repeate after me: March on! People of all heroic nationalities!
Let us continue the Long March under the great Communist Party's guidance,
Millions with but one heart toward a communist tomorrow,
Develop and protect the country, fight bravely.
March on, march on, march on!
We will for generations,
Raise high Mao Zedong's banner, march on!
Raise high Mao Zedong's banner, march on!
March on! March on! On!


P:S i am british so this unfortunatly doesnt give me the privalage to bath in the light that is communism

I'd say the easiest thing to do would be to put him aboard a C-141 bound for Iraq from the US, and somewhere over the Atlantic Ocean, throw him out at 34,000 feet without a parachute.

Problem solved.

Haha, nice.:cool:

meh Americas corporate empire is in decline and soon china will rule so i call upon all americans to re-patriotise and become chinese

repeate after me: March on! People of all heroic nationalities!
Let us continue the Long March under the great Communist Party's guidance,
Millions with but one heart toward a communist tomorrow,
Develop and protect the country, fight bravely.
March on, march on, march on!
We will for generations,
Raise high Mao Zedong's banner, march on!
Raise high Mao Zedong's banner, march on!
March on! March on! On!


P:S i am british so this unfortunatly doesnt give me the privalage to bath in the light that is communism

What!? Communism killed 100 million people and all I got was this stupid song? :D

We only hold prisoners for trial for the minimum time needed to push them through the system and found guilty or not. Detaining a person “Awaiting trial” for an indefinite period of time is illegal as well.
He's had his representation and has had an opportunity to respond to the indictment and the specific charges. He failed to do so. Had he done so he would probably have either won his freedom until trial or, at least, have been transferred to the civilian criminal justice system.

I understand the fear that we are headed to a more restrictive government and I share it. But pick your battles wisely. This guy is right where he needs to be. I hope he never sees the light of day again. He'll get his trial and, if teh cahrges are as tight as they appear to be, he'll be convicted and he'll die "with a wimper" in solitary someplace, Allah willing (PBUH).

No faith in your government is a dangerous thing.
So let's meet in the middle, ask questions (and sing) :cool:

Looking through this thread, I have to say some ifferent things. First off, I can also understnad the fear of a more pwerful and larger government. Second, I believe that if there is the reasonable suspicion that this man is in fact a terrorist, than we have every right to hold hime. Perhaps not for the length of time that he has been held, but nonetheless he should be held. And maybe I'm wrong, but he must have done SOMETHING to make the authorities believe that he was a terrorist. Therefore, he is a danger to the american people and the government may(surprise surprise)be doing it's job. That's just my opinion though.

Looking through this thread, I have to say some ifferent things. First off, I can also understnad the fear of a more pwerful and larger government. Second, I believe that if there is the reasonable suspicion that this man is in fact a terrorist, than we have every right to hold hime. Perhaps not for the length of time that he has been held, but nonetheless he should be held. And maybe I'm wrong, but he must have done SOMETHING to make the authorities believe that he was a terrorist. Therefore, he is a danger to the american people and the government may(surprise surprise)be doing it's job. That's just my opinion though.
In this case it's the right opinion. These charges are not vague at all. They are extremely specific and detailed. I posted the case. Read it.

I did read it, and found, as you did, that it spoke for itself. This man is obviously not the innocent little muslim trying to make his way here that he wants us to think he is.

You can't first denounce the system all together and THEN expect to be protected by it.

Either/or.

I can stand on the streatcorner and state that the government of the United States should fall. I could yell at the top of my lungs that the constitution should burn to ash and that the foundations of this nation should crumble to dust to be wiped off the face of the earth.

Yet I am still protected by the constitution. To claim otherwise is both idiotic and treasonous.

And maybe I'm wrong, but he must have done SOMETHING to make the authorities believe that he was a terrorist. Therefore, he is a danger to the american people and the government may(surprise surprise)be doing it's job.
This is a thought I find to be scary, and I've seen many people express it throughout this thread - before the charges were posted here.

I can stand on the streatcorner and state that the government of the United States should fall. I could yell at the top of my lungs that the constitution should burn to ash and that the foundations of this nation should crumble to dust to be wiped off the face of the earth.

Yet I am still protected by the constitution. To claim otherwise is both idiotic and treasonous.


WONDERFUL. That, my friend, is a spectacular example oof the consitution at work. Thank you for correcting that.

This is a thought I find to be scary, and I've seen many people express it throughout this thread - before the charges were posted here.


I watch Fox.

This is a thought I find to be scary, and I've seen many people express it throughout this thread - before the charges were posted here.
But now that they have been - and I understand your argument about blind faith in the government - and you can see that he has, in fact, been charged, you would agree that this is not the guy you want to use to build your civil rights case around, right?

Let me clarify that last post. I watch the new frequently, and I also listen to paul harvey and rush, I know what is going on in the states, even if most people don't take the time to do these thigs every day.

Just so we can all speak intelligently about this. The guy comes into the US, promptly steals Social Security numbers and gets fake IDs and uses them to open three bank accounts in one day. Then, he makes phone calls from his phone card to Mustafa Ahmed al-Hawsawi, a well known Al Qeada financier and the person responsible for getting money to the 9/11 hijackers. When he is initially interviewed at his apartment he lies and says he came into the country the day before 9/11 when he had actually been here setting up fake bank accounts since at least 2000. After the attacks, this guy, from his cell phone, made severalk calls to al-Hawsawi, the same guy who Mohammed Atta made several calls to and who opened a bank account into which all of the hijackers emptied their accounts the day before 9/11. When they arrested this guy they found messages from Osama Bin Laden and detailed notes on how to make cianide gas on his computer. Read this. This guy's case is tight.
that is the federal case from '02. he could have been tried on that case. he wasnt. in '03 he was declared an enemy combatant and put in a navy brig in south carolina.

the judge had to force the government to show their evidence against him a month ago--after 3 years in solitary confinement.

heres a quote from a brief they filed at sometime during the case trying to get access to the evidence against him. (reformatting mine)

Since the President designated him an “enemy combatant” over two years ago, Petitioner Ali Saleh Kahlah al-Marri has been held in solitary confinement in a Navy brig without charge and without a hearing. Indeed, he has not even been afforded the process provided to those individuals captured by the military outside the United States and charged before military commissions or detained at Guantánamo Bay, Cuba. In determining what process Mr. al-Marri
is now due, and how the Supreme Court’s decision in Hamdi v. Rumsfeld, 542 U.S. 507, 124 S. Ct. 2633 (2004), bears on that question, a few basic points are worth repeating.

On June 23, 2003, when President Bush signed the order declaring him an “enemy combatant,” Mr. al-Marri was awaiting trial on criminal charges in a federal district court. As a criminal defendant, Mr. al-Marri was entitled to the same fundamental protections against unlawful imprisonment that this Country has always afforded individuals accused of wrongdoing, no matter how serious the offense or how dangerous the offender, during times of
war and during times of peace. These protections have been afforded to suspected terrorists, both before and after September 11, 2001, including, for example, to Zacarias Moussaoui, the alleged “twentieth hijacker.” Yet, on June 23, 2003, the President sought to strip Mr. al-Marri of these protections by executive fiat, that is, by declaring him an “enemy combatant.”

This Court, assuming the truth of the government’s factual allegations, has previously upheld the President’s legal authority to detain Mr. al-Marri. Al-Marri v. Hanft, 378 F. Supp. 2d 673 (D.S.C. 2005). It now must determine what process Mr. al-Marri is due to challenge the veracity of those allegations. The government, for its part, continues to assert a degree of executive power and immunity from meaningful judicial review that defies all precedent. It argues that the burden is on Mr. al-Marri to refute a triple hearsay declaration by a Department of Defense functionary, which includes allegations that Mr. al-Marri has not been permitted to see, and which is based on statements that may have been obtained through torture, cruel and inhuman treatment, or other circumstances that call the veracity of the information into question.

Even if the President has the legal authority to hold individuals arrested in the United States as “enemy combatants,” however, it would mock due process to allow the government to thus deny Mr. al-Marri a meaningful opportunity to challenge the factual basis for his indefinite detention.

if they have a case against him, they need to get to it and give him a fair trial. if they dont, they need to send him home. keeping people in prison indefinitely without charges and without a trial is unconstitutional.

But now that they have been - and I understand your argument about blind faith in the government - and you can see that he has, in fact, been charged, you would agree that this is not the guy you want to use to build your civil rights case around, right?

If he has been charged legitimatly, been given a fair access to a lawyer, and has been presented a speedy trial then quite correct, there has been no violation.

If these things have not occured, then regardless of what evidence the ggovernment may have against him, the violations still occur. The fundamental idea of the constitution is it doesn't matter what I do, it doesn't matter who I am, it does not matter what I have done or how tight the government's case is against me, even if they could prove, without ANY doubt what so ever, and allowing my defense councilor time would be a mere formality and have no effect on the outcome which would be given, we STILL do it, ALWAYS.

There is no "right" civil rights claim, there is no "right" person. Even the worst among us, even those against whom the evidence is overwhelming, even those who would overthrow the government, are entitled to the rights of the constitution. Deny them that, and you help them succeed in overthrowing it.

This is a thought I find to be scary, and I've seen many people express it throughout this thread - before the charges were posted here.
and that I also agree with.

but beware of BLIND MISTRUST as well. (not saying you are doing this, but there are those that will always think the Goverment is wrong.)

I can stand on the streatcorner and state that the government of the United States should fall. I could yell at the top of my lungs that the constitution should burn to ash and that the foundations of this nation should crumble to dust to be wiped off the face of the earth.

Yet I am still protected by the constitution. To claim otherwise is both idiotic and treasonous.
and while you are correct that no one can gag you, or try to shut your mouth, you also have to accept the consiquences of doing that. WE will respect your right to say what ever you want but please respect our right to react and respond to what you say.

so when the G-men start putting you under servelance after your declaration... don't cry "The Gov is gagging me."

and that I also agree with.

but beware of BLIND MISTRUST as well. (not saying you are doing this, but there are those that will always think the Goverment is wrong.)

Blind mistrust is bad, however what many of us have stated is not blind mistrust. It is the desire that the government adhere to its own laws, unquestioningly, unwaiveringly, and hesitation, in ALL situations.

There are always going to be people who are going to support the government. There are alslo always giong to be those who do not support it. Human nature dictates the difference in opinions and ideas. The beliefs and values of one person will always sharply contrast those of the next. It's just the way that people think. This man in question, the one this thread is about, in coming here, he came here with the belief that he was doing the righ thing, that he was supporting the goverment or emnity hat he looked up to. And allthough we not see the reasoning behind it, he does. That is what terrorism is. That is what war is. That is what LIFE is.

and while you are correct that no one can gag you, or try to shut your mouth, you also have to accept the consiquences of doing that. WE will respect your right to say what ever you want but please respect our right to react and respond to what you say.

so when the G-men start putting you under servelance after your declaration... don't cry "The Gov is gagging me."


Someone had stated that you can not simultaniously decry the government, and be protected by it. Which, of course, is absolute nonsense.

Now WERE I to say that all, would it give rise to a sufficient level of suspicion that would entitle the government to put me under surveilance? Maybe....

Would my act of speaking against the government thus negate my constitutional rights and thus entitle the government to lock me away indefinitly without trial or access to a lawyer as an "enemy of the state"? Absolutly not, and claiming so is a ludicrus proposition.

But now that they have been - and I understand your argument about blind faith in the government - and you can see that he has, in fact, been charged, you would agree that this is not the guy you want to use to build your civil rights case around, right?
yeah this IS the guy i want to build a civil rights case around.

if they have this tight case, then he needs to be tried in a court of law. it should be a simple case then off he goes to the supermax in wherever colorado.

the government has no right to hold people forever without charges and without a trial. thats why we put it in the bill of rights. we dont DO that and it seems from the original indictiment that, in this case, we dont NEED to do that. so why doesnt he get his day in court just like zacarias moussaoui did?

If he has been charged legitimatly, been given a fair access to a lawyer, and has been presented a speedy trial then quite correct, there has been no violation.

If these things have not occured, then regardless of what evidence the ggovernment may have against him, the violations still occur. The fundamental idea of the constitution is it doesn't matter what I do, it doesn't matter who I am, it does not matter what I have done or how tight the government's case is against me, even if they could prove, without ANY doubt what so ever, and allowing my defense councilor time would be a mere formality and have no effect on the outcome which would be given, we STILL do it, ALWAYS.

There is no "right" civil rights claim, there is no "right" person. Even the worst among us, even those against whom the evidence is overwhelming, even those who would overthrow the government, are entitled to the rights of the constitution. Deny them that, and you help them succeed in overthrowing it.
The fact is this guy came to our country with the express purpose of killing as many of us as he can. He is not a citizen of the US and his aim is clear. During discovery, when he was held in the civilian criminal justice system, he was afforded all of the documentation necessary to defend himself in criminal court. His current lawyers, who we are paying for, surely has access to that documentation. He was given the right of reply to answer the specific charges against him and he did not. Had he done so he would have either been freed, unlikely, or transferred back into the civilian criminal justice system, more likely. His answer was so inadequate that they judge presiding over the case called it "either a sophomoric approach to a serious issue, or worse, an attempt to subvert the judicial process and flout due process." This guy is not just languishing in a cell. He has representation and he has a legal process that is ongoing. Judges are hearing arguments in his case and are ruling on them. If it is a matter of you having a problem with the whole "enemy combatant" rule and how it is often applied, I share them. I just don't share them in this case and I do understand the difference between treating someone as a criminal and treating someone as an enemy who's aim is not to steal money or launder drug money or shoplift, but to attack the United States and kill as many citizens as possible in an act that is part of what that person has clearly defined as a war.

There are always going to be people who are going to support the government. There are alslo always giong to be those who do not support it. Human nature dictates the difference in opinions and ideas. The beliefs and values of one person will always sharply contrast those of the next. It's just the way that people think. This man in question, the one this thread is about, in coming here, he came here with the belief that he was doing the righ thing, that he was supporting the goverment or emnity hat he looked up to. And allthough we not see the reasoning behind it, he does. That is what terrorism is. That is what war is. That is what LIFE is.
we dont know that any of that is true until the government tries him in a court of law and the evidence is brought out. allegations are just allegations. they must be proved beyond a reasonable doubt. when all the evidence is brought out in court THEN you can say that thats the kind of man he is.

I'll tell you what happened. A few people like that guy flew some airliners into a few US buildings and killed thousands of innocent people.

Maybe you need to go see the movie United 93, and relive the moment.

Racist much?

Sorry, but I don't buy into the idea that in order to defeat your enemy, you must become him. If that's the case, then we're doomed to become scum, and I refuse to accept that.

Amen.

Does that mean we must toss aside out lives and values in order to fight? We must destroy the village in order to save it? Must we too strap bomb on our kids and send them into crowded marketplaces in order to secure a win?

Thank you, no. I'd rather come back home to America, not a place I can no longer reconise but bears her name.

We must, at all costs, preserve the basic Bill of Rights. The belief that "all men are endowed by their creator with certain inalienable rights." Security can never outweigh human rights - a society which allows that is not a society I want to be part of.

We routinely hold offenders awaiting trial with no bail. If you are arrested for murder, you are held until trial is done if your crime is serious enough and if you are a flight risk. This guy's crime - conspiracy to commit terrorism - is pretty serious, and since he's not even an American citizen he's an obvious flight risk. I have no problem with this.

As I understand it, he hasn't actually been charged with anything. If he has been charged with a crime, then your analogy holds. If he has not, then it doesn't hold.

And that is from where my outrage stems.

EDIT: So the guy has been charged. Then try him. Try him, convict him, punish him. That is how our justice system has been set up. Get arrested, get charged, sit in jail until (timely) trial, get tried, get convicted or not, get punished if convicted. Not get charged and sit in jail indefinitely. So, I guess I'm still outraged.

Someone had stated that you can not simultaniously decry the government, and be protected by it. Which, of course, is absolute nonsense.

Now WERE I to say that all, would it give rise to a sufficient level of suspicion that would entitle the government to put me under surveilance? Maybe....

Would my act of speaking against the government thus negate my constitutional rights and thus entitle the government to lock me away indefinitly without trial or access to a lawyer as an "enemy of the state"? Absolutly not, and claiming so is a ludicrus proposition.
nope you would still be protected. the only way to not be protected by the us constitution is if you refuse that protection.

the original article never stated that (forget his name and at work so no time to look it up.) he was a legal resident of the US.

However, if he has been charged and is a legal resident of the US.. then I would rather we sit back and let it unfold. if the lawyers use the "Rights trampled" card to get a mistrial. I would rather wait and see what the prosecution does.

The point of that post was not to defend him, or what he may or may not be, but to emphasise on the fact that these people, al-queda, bin ladin, mussari, all of them are acting on wehat they believe and we are retaliating based on what we believe.

I'll tell you what happened. A few people like that guy flew some airliners into a few US buildings and killed thousands of innocent people.

Maybe you need to go see the movie United 93, and relive the moment.

Racist much?



Amen.
Jesus I'm tired of that stupid appeal to racism. Can you show me how that statement is racit, please? The fact is that a bunch of fundamentlaist Mulim Jihadists hijacked planes on 9/11 and killed thousands of people. That's not a racist statement, that's a factual statement. The guy in question here is not only a fundamentalist Muslim Jihadist, he also has close financial and communicative ties to principles in the attacks. He is "a guy like that."

Jesus I'm tired of that stupid appeal to racism. Can you show me how that statement is racit, please? The fact is that a bunch of fundamentlaist Mulim Jihadists hijacked planes on 9/11 and killed thousands of people. That's not a racist statement, that's a factual statement. The guy in question here is not only a fundamentalist Muslim Jihadist, he also has close financial and communicative ties to principles in the attacks. He is "a guy like that."


Bingo.

Jesus I'm tired of that stupid appeal to racism. Can you show me how that statement is racit, please? The fact is that a bunch of fundamentlaist Mulim Jihadists hijacked planes on 9/11 and killed thousands of people. That's not a racist statement, that's a factual statement. The guy in question here is not only a fundamentalist Muslim Jihadist, he also has close financial and communicative ties to principles in the attacks. He is "a guy like that."

It makes me happy that someone that lives in Los Angeles and is a leftist (your politcal compass) is still sane and has ability to understand the right thing and uses it.

This makes me very happy and gives me a spark of hope for Los Angeles.
:fluffle:

The guy in question here is not only a fundamentalist Muslim Jihadist, he also has close financial and communicative ties to principles in the attacks. He is "a guy like that."

A guy like that cannot be considered a guy like that unless it is proven that he his a Muslim jihadist. Up until this point he is just a Muslim sitting in jail, unless he has admitted it.

We cannot assume he is a jihadist until it has been proven or he admits it.

To say otherwise is racist.

A guy like that cannot be considered a guy like that unless it is proven that he his a Muslim jihadist. Up until this point he is just a Muslim sitting in jail, unless he has admitted it.

We cannot assume he is a jihadist until it has been proven or he admits it.

To say otherwise is racist.

here

18. On or about December 11, 2001, after the FBI performed the telephone analysis described above, another agent and I revisited ALI SALEH KAHLAH AL-MARRI, a/k/a "Abdullakareem A. Almuslam," the defendant, at his Peoria, Illinois apartment. We asked him to come to the Peoria, Illinois office of the FBI to answer some additional questions. AL-MARRI agreed. In addition, we asked AL-MARRI for permission to search his apartment. AL-MARRI consented to the search. During this search, we found, among other things, a laptop computer. I asked AL-MARRI for consent to search the laptop. AL-MARRI gave his consent and retrieved a laptop computer carrying case that was in his closet. AL-MARRI then put the laptop computer in the carrying case.

19. During the interview that was conducted later on December 11, 2001, ALI SALEH KAHLAH AL-MARRI, a/k/a "Abdullakareem A. Almuslam," the defendant, stated the following, in substance and in part:

a. AL-MARRI denied knowing anyone named Mustafa Ahmed al-Hawsawi and denied ever calling the UAE Telephone Number or anyone associated with that telephone number.

b. AL-MARRI acknowledged that he had telephoned an individual in Houston, Texas (the "Houston Resident"). The Houston Resident is the registered subscriber to the Houston, Texas telephone number to which a telephone call was made, on or about October 24, 2001, from the AL-MARRI HOME PHONE using the Network IP Calling Card and Pin Number. (See supra º 16(d)).

c. AL-MARRI stated that he had not traveled to any countries other than Qatar, Saudi Arabia, and the United States.

20. On December 12, 2001, an FBI computer systems analyst, with whom I have spoken, opened the computer carrying case provided to the FBI the day before by ALI SALEH KAHLAH AL-MARRI, a/k/a "Abdullakareem A. Almuslam," the defendant, and found, among other things, a folded two-page handwritten document that listed approximately 36 credit card numbers together with the names of the account holders, an indication as to whether each credit card number was VISA or Mastercard, and the expiration dates of each card. The expiration dates on the list indicated that each of the cards had expired. AL-MARRI was not listed as the account holder for any of the approximately 36 credit cards. Approximately 17 of the 36 credit card numbers appeared to be issued by domestic banks. I have learned from other agents that records from the issuing domestic banks showed that the approximately 17 domestically issued credit card numbers were either once or currently valid, and that they were issued to persons other than AL-MARRI. (4) In addition, during their search of AL-MARRI's laptop computer, the FBI computer systems analysts found:

a. An Arabic oath or prayer, which states, among other things, that "[n]either the U.S. nor anyone living in it will dream of security/safety before we live it in Palestine and before the infidel armies leave the land of Mohammed," and that God should "protect" and "guard" Usama Bin Laden.

b. Computer audio files containing Arabic lectures by Usama bin Laden and his associates, concerning, among other things, the importance of jihad and martyrdom and the merits of the Taliban regime in Afghanistan. The lectures instructed, among other things, that Muslim scholars shouldorganize opposition to Jewish and Christian control of "Palestine," Lebanon, and Saudi Arabia; that ordinary Muslims should train in Bin Laden's camps in Afghanistan by entering through Pakistan; and that clerics who claim that Islam is a religion of peace should be disregarded.

c. Photographs of the September 11 Attacks on the World Trade Center; photographs of various Arab prisoners held by authorities in Kabul, Afghanistan; and a map of Afghanistan.

d. Computer files containing lists of websites that are titled, among other things, "Jihad arena"; "Taliban"; "Arab's new club - Jihad club"; "Tunes by bullets"; and "martyrs."

e. A computer folder called "chem" containing favorite bookmarked internet web sites, including sites providing factsheets for hazardous substances and other sites providing the amounts of certain hazardous chemicals that are "immediately dangerous to life or health." (5) The folder also contains websites designed for the acquisition of industrial chemicals.

A guy like that cannot be considered a guy like that unless it is proven that he his a Muslim jihadist. Up until this point he is just a Muslim sitting in jail, unless he has admitted it.

We cannot assume he is a jihadist until it has been proven or he admits it.

To say otherwise is racist.


Ok. I have been nice up tillnow. BUT COME ON! He stole social security numbers, set up THREE bank account and had contact with a PROVEN terrorist prior to the attacks on new york and washington. THINK some, pal!

Ok. I have been nice up tillnow. BUT COME ON! He stole social security numbers, set up THREE bank account and had contact with a PROVEN terrorist prior to the attacks on new york and washington. THINK some, pal!

None of that has been proven. It has just been alleged.

None of that has been proven. It's just been alleged.

So someone may have doctered the cell phone records? just to get this guy in trouble? once again, think before you type.

None of that has been proven. It has just been alleged.
They have the telephone numbers, used with a PIN, by the way. They have the records from the banks and from the credit card customers that he defrauded, they have the cell tower activatiosn from his cell phone to calls made to the UAE to the AQ financier, the same guy Atta called all the time, they have the records from the fake bank accounts he set up, they have the testimony from the people who worked at the hotel he was staying at and at ahich he set up his fake business, "AAA Carpets," through which he could launder money from fraudulent credit card use to fund "whatever," they have the bookmarks on his personal computer that he used to do exactly what we are doing right now except on Jihadist websites and to research detailed info on how to make chemical weapons and how to obtain the chemicals necessary to make them...

So someone may have doctered the cell phone records? just to get this guy in trouble? once again, think before you type.

They have the telephone numbers, used with a PIN, by the way. They have the records from the banks and from the credit card customers that he defrauded, they have the cell tower activatiosn from his cell phone to calls made to the UAE to the AQ financier, the same guy Atta called all the time, they have the records from the fake bank accounts he set up, they have the testimony from the people who worked at the hotel he was staying at and at ahich he set up his fake business, "AAA Carpets," through which he could launder money from fraudulent credit card use to fund "whatever," they have the bookmarks on his personal computer that he used to do exactly what we are doing right now except on Jihadist websites and to research detailed info on how to make chemical weapons and how to obtain the chemicals necessary to make them...


Hey, so the allegations are likely true, but until they have been proven in a court of law, they're allegations. That's the beauty of the American court system. Regardless of how good the evidence looks, a person is innocent until a trial proves him guilty.

They have the telephone numbers, used with a PIN, by the way. They have the records from the banks and from the credit card customers that he defrauded, they have the cell tower activatiosn from his cell phone to calls made to the UAE to the AQ financier, the same guy Atta called all the time, they have the records from the fake bank accounts he set up, they have the testimony from the people who worked at the hotel he was staying at and at ahich he set up his fake business, "AAA Carpets," through which he could launder money from fraudulent credit card use to fund "whatever," they have the bookmarks on his personal computer that he used to do exactly what we are doing right now except on Jihadist websites and to research detailed info on how to make chemical weapons and how to obtain the chemicals necessary to make them...
often enough, when such evidence is brought to an actual trial, it is shown to be false.

im not saying that that will be how it unfold in this case, im saying that it needs to be brought to a trial. just like any other criminal would be brought to trial.

what are they so afraid of?

Hey, so the allegations are likely true, but until they haves been proven in a court of law, they're allegations. That's the beauty of the American court system. Regardless of how good the evidence looks, a person is innocent until a trial proves him guilty.
The US constitution protects American citizens. It's protections have traditionally been extended to most immigrants, even illegal ones, but there is no force of law compelling us to do so. In fact, in cases involving organized crime, we have often just sent criminals back to their home countries to face trial. I have no problem with extending these protections to immigrants, even illegal ones, in most cases but I do think there is a point when you can draw a clear distinctionbetween a criminal who is here to smuggle drugs, run prostitutes or launder money and someone who has come here with the expressed purpose of waging a war against the U.S. and who wants to kill as many people as possible with a WMD.

Not only is this guy not a citizen, he isn't even here legally because he lied on his visa application to get in. Once he was here he started using other people's credit cards fraudulently to launder stolen money into accounts to fund a war against us and to help prepare terrorist attacks on US soil.

Once again, I do have problems with how the enemy combatant rules are applied. However, I do not have a problem with recognizing the difference between a criminal and someone who has come here to commit an act of war. There is clearly an ongoing judicial process to review this guy's status as an enemy combatant, a process not helped by the defendant's refusal to rebut the charges of the FBI. If at the end of this process the courts decide that he should be tried as a criminal, as it did with Jose Padilla, a guy I did have a problem with holding as a combatant, then he will be tried in criminal court. If not, that's fine, too. He should've taken the opportunity to rebut the charges against him. All he had to do, according to the article, was make a reasoned reply refuting the charges.

I find her funny (then again, I am not an American style liberal). Overreact, and you play right into her trap.Funny.. in internet parlance, we call behaviour like this "trolling".

So are you saying that's what he was attempting to do?

often enough, when such evidence is brought to an actual trial, it is shown to be false.

im not saying that that will be how it unfold in this case, im saying that it needs to be brought to a trial. just like any other criminal would be brought to trial.

what are they so afraid of?
Something else has also occured to me. The evidence against him in the orginal case is claerly public because I posted it. We have no idea what other evidence was found that would be public should the trial go to court and his defence attorneys would have access to all of it and could publish it. This could possibly include evidence that compromises interrogation techniques, investigation techniques as well as sources and agents who's lives could be in danger should it be released. If the ongoing court case concludes that his designation as an enemy combatant is unlawfull he'll get his trial. He might want to help himself a little and actually refute the government's case, though. In the meantime I have no problem the government keeping any additional evidence that they have against this guy secret until then.

Something else has also occured to me. The evidence against him in the orginal case is claerly public because I posted it. We have no idea what other evidence was found that would be public should the trial go to court and his defence attorneys would have access to all of it and could publish it. This could possibly include evidence that compromises interrogation techniques, investigation techniques as well as sources and agents who's lives could be in danger should it be released. If the ongoing court case concludes that his designation as an enemy combatant is unlawfull he'll get his trial. He might want to help himself a little and actually refute the government's case, though. In the meantime I have no problem the government keeping any additional evidence that they have against this guy secret until then.
the guy does have a right to build a defense which he cant do if he doesnt know the evidence against him.

i dont have a problem with things being kept secret, i just want him to be tried.

the guy does have a right to build a defense which he cant do if he doesnt know the evidence against him.

i dont have a problem with things being kept secret, i just want him to be tried.*Nods in agreement*
and I would rather he be tried by a court and not by the media.

I did read it, and found, as you did, that it spoke for itself. This man is obviously not the innocent little muslim trying to make his way here that he wants us to think he is.

So why hasn't he been brought to court yet?

the guy does have a right to build a defense which he cant do if he doesnt know the evidence against him.

i dont have a problem with things being kept secret, i just want him to be tried.
His status as an enemy combatant is being reviewed by the courts as we speak, hence, the article that was posted to begin this thread. Again, I would point out that he is not an American citizen and lied on his Visa application to get in. Also, his lie was an attempt to hide the fact that he was here to kill a bunch of us. There is no force of law that says we should provide him with the rights the Constitution guarentees us as citizens. Should he win this case he will afforded those rights, nontheless. I will also point out again that he was simply asked to respond to the charges the US gov't has made and he refused to do so in a meaningfull way.

This is probably not a guy we want running around. If he does get his freedom one day he'll probably spend that freedom trying to kill as many Jews, Christians, Europeans and Americans as possible. If you read the whole case, these charges are extremely specific and are backed up by phone records, bank records, his own computer records, motel emplyee testimony and credit card reciepts. One poster here posted an article taht says that the cliams of the government are based on "triple hearsay." None of the evidence in the orginal criminal case relies on hearsay so you have to wonder if additional charges by the government are based on interviews with informants or agents whoes lives and missions could be at stake.

As I said, this guy's status is being reviewed by the courts and he has lawyers working for him at taxpayer expense. I have no problem seeing where this thing goes.

nope you would still be protected. the only way to not be protected by the us constitution is if you refuse that protection.

the original article never stated that (forget his name and at work so no time to look it up.) he was a legal resident of the US.

However, if he has been charged and is a legal resident of the US.. then I would rather we sit back and let it unfold. if the lawyers use the "Rights trampled" card to get a mistrial. I would rather wait and see what the prosecution does.

As an international student, he had a student visa and was a legal resident of the United States at the time of his arrest.

As an international student, he had a student visa and WAS a legal resident of the United States at the time of his arrest.
No, he lied on his Visa application to get in and immediately started stealing Social Security numbers and obtaining fake IDs to open fraudulent banks accounts. You are only a LEGAL resident if you do not lie on yoru application and your application explicitly says that to keep your status as a legal resident you have to obey the laws of our country.

No, he lied on his Visa application to get in and immediately started stealing Social Security numbers and obtaining fake IDs to open fraudulent banks accounts. You are only a LEGAL resident if you do not lie on yoru application and your application explicitly says that to keep your status as a legal resident you have to obey the laws of our country.
But one is not guilty until after a trial of ones peers … up until that point he was convicted of being guilty he was a legal resident of the United States.

here

If he has not made an official statement admitting that he is a Jihadist, then it falls upon the Government the burden of proving he is one. As such, this evidence would be used in a trial. Where is the trial?

I am not arguing for him, I am arguing for the trial, the rights.

But one is not guilty until after a trial of ones peers … up until that point he was convicted of being guilty he was a legal resident of the United States.
That's not true. If the ICE can determine that you clearly lied on your application they can deny your Visa or even deport you immediately. This guy clearly lied. His application states that he was here before Sept. 10th 2001, one day before 9/11, only once way back in 1990 or so. There are clear recordsm reciepts, phone calls, even bank account records that show he was here in 2000 setting up false bank accounts.

The US constitution protects American citizens. It's protections have traditionally been extended to most immigrants, even illegal ones, but there is no force of law compelling us to do so. In fact, in cases involving organized crime, we have often just sent criminals back to their home countries to face trial. I have no problem with extending these protections to immigrants, even illegal ones, in most cases but I do think there is a point when you can draw a clear distinctionbetween a criminal who is here to smuggle drugs, run prostitutes or launder money and someone who has come here with the expressed purpose of waging a war against the U.S. and who wants to kill as many people as possible with a WMD.

Not only is this guy not a citizen, he isn't even here legally because he lied on his visa application to get in. Once he was here he started using other people's credit cards fraudulently to launder stolen money into accounts to fund a war against us and to help prepare terrorist attacks on US soil.

Once again, I do have problems with how the enemy combatant rules are applied. However, I do not have a problem with recognizing the difference between a criminal and someone who has come here to commit an act of war. There is clearly an ongoing judicial process to review this guy's status as an enemy combatant, a process not helped by the defendant's refusal to rebut the charges of the FBI. If at the end of this process the courts decide that he should be tried as a criminal, as it did with Jose Padilla, a guy I did have a problem with holding as a combatant, then he will be tried in criminal court. If not, that's fine, too. He should've taken the opportunity to rebut the charges against him. All he had to do, according to the article, was make a reasoned reply refuting the charges.

Is there a difference between "enemy combatant" and prisoner of war? Because if he is a prisoner of war, then the rules apply to him. If he isn't, we need to know what rules apply to "enemy combatants"

If he's not a legal citizen, then there's procedures, such as diplomatic routes, sending him back, international courts, he can't just be held, they have to do something.

PS. Needed time to read the backlog

Without agreeing or disagreeing with any statements made previously regarding the rights of individuals (citizen, resident, alien, etc.) within the United States, let's examine a few things:

1) The US is currently in a state of war against Iraq. This gives the US certain privileges and perogatives against enemy troops.

2) The Geneva Conventions are very strict on what can be done with prisoners of war (which is what this individual has been classified as by military authorities).

Art. 21. The Detaining Power may subject prisoners of war to internment. It may impose on them the obligation of not leaving, beyond certain limits, the camp where they are interned, or if the said camp is fenced in, of not going outside its perimeter. Subject to the provisions of the present Convention relative to penal and disciplinary sanctions, prisoners of war may not be held in close confinement except where necessary to safeguard their health and then only during the continuation of the circumstances which make such confinement necessary.


3) This means that detaining the prisoner in question, within a safe environment (as we must assume the naval brig was, given no allegations of mistreatment have been brought forth), is legal according to the Geneva Convention.

4) Solitary confinement in this circumstance is not an unlikely scenario. Given the strong feelings many Americans (particularly the military) carry regarding the terrorist attacks, it was likely the best way to ensure his protection. Setting him loose with US military prisoners could easily have been tantamount to a death sentence.


Traditionally, and by law, military prisoners (including prisoners of war) are tried in military courts. If you read further into the article originally posted, you'll notice the prisoner in question refused to aid in his own defense, which would certainly extend the period of time in which it would take to successfully prosecute him.

The confusion here results from the fact that he's being held on US soil, in a military prison, as a prisoner of war. Generally, prisoners of war are held within their country of origin in internment camps. The location of this prisoner has given the judiciary system the idea that they are responsible for the judicial disposition of this prisoner.

Is there a difference between "enemy combatant" and prisoner of war? Because if he is a prisoner of war, then the rules apply to him. If he isn't, we need to know what rules apply to "enemy combatants"

If he's not a legal citizen, then there's procedures, such as diplomatic routes, sending him back, international courts, he can't just be held, they have to do something.
I'm not sure if that's a distinction without a difference, but we have absolutely no obligation to send a "prisoner of war" back to his country. Period. In anycase, I wonder if his country wants him back. Probably not, would be my guess. Let Al Qeada appeal for his release. As for the Geneva Conventions, they don't say anything about "due process." They simply say how a prisoner should be treated while in custody. I have seen no evidence that he is being tortured or denied food and water or sleep. If he is then I would have a problem with that.

Without agreeing or disagreeing with any statements made previously regarding the rights of individuals (citizen, resident, alien, etc.) within the United States, let's examine a few things:

1) The US is currently in a state of war against Iraq. This gives the US certain privileges and perogatives against enemy troops.

2) The Geneva Conventions are very strict on what can be done with prisoners of war (which is what this individual has been classified as by military authorities).

Art. 21. The Detaining Power may subject prisoners of war to internment. It may impose on them the obligation of not leaving, beyond certain limits, the camp where they are interned, or if the said camp is fenced in, of not going outside its perimeter. Subject to the provisions of the present Convention relative to penal and disciplinary sanctions, prisoners of war may not be held in close confinement except where necessary to safeguard their health and then only during the continuation of the circumstances which make such confinement necessary.


3) This means that detaining the prisoner in question, within a safe environment (as we must assume the naval brig was, given no allegations of mistreatment have been brought forth), is legal according to the Geneva Convention.

4) Solitary confinement in this circumstance is not an unlikely scenario. Given the strong feelings many Americans (particularly the military) carry regarding the terrorist attacks, it was likely the best way to ensure his protection. Setting him loose with US military prisoners could easily have been tantamount to a death sentence.


Traditionally, and by law, military prisoners (including prisoners of war) are tried in military courts. If you read further into the article originally posted, you'll notice the prisoner in question refused to aid in his own defense, which would certainly extend the period of time in which it would take to successfully prosecute him.

The confusion here results from the fact that he's being held on US soil, in a military prison, as a prisoner of war. Generally, prisoners of war are held within their country of origin in internment camps. The location of this prisoner has given the judiciary system the idea that they are responsible for the judicial disposition of this prisoner.
Thanks. :)

I'm not sure if that's a distinction without a difference, but we have absolutely no obligation to send a "prisoner of war" back to his country. Period. In anycase, I wonder if his country wants him back. Probably not, would be my guess. Let Al Qeada appeal for his release. As for the Geneva Conventions, they don't say anything about "due process." They simply say how a prisoner should be treated while in custody. I have seen no evidence that he is being tortured or denied food and water or sleep. If he is then I would have a problem with that.

What about solitary confinement? I am sincerely curious.

What about solitary confinement? I am sincerely curious.
Aardweasels just posted it. You can look at the quote above yoru post or go to the page before.

cool

I am in Guatemala and sometimes the connection gives me troubles, lag, etc.

Without agreeing or disagreeing with any statements made previously regarding the rights of individuals (citizen, resident, alien, etc.) within the United States, let's examine a few things:

1) The US is currently in a state of war against Iraq. This gives the US certain privileges and perogatives against enemy troops.

2) The Geneva Conventions are very strict on what can be done with prisoners of war (which is what this individual has been classified as by military authorities).

Art. 21. The Detaining Power may subject prisoners of war to internment. It may impose on them the obligation of not leaving, beyond certain limits, the camp where they are interned, or if the said camp is fenced in, of not going outside its perimeter. Subject to the provisions of the present Convention relative to penal and disciplinary sanctions, prisoners of war may not be held in close confinement except where necessary to safeguard their health and then only during the continuation of the circumstances which make such confinement necessary.


3) This means that detaining the prisoner in question, within a safe environment (as we must assume the naval brig was, given no allegations of mistreatment have been brought forth), is legal according to the Geneva Convention.

4) Solitary confinement in this circumstance is not an unlikely scenario. Given the strong feelings many Americans (particularly the military) carry regarding the terrorist attacks, it was likely the best way to ensure his protection. Setting him loose with US military prisoners could easily have been tantamount to a death sentence.


Traditionally, and by law, military prisoners (including prisoners of war) are tried in military courts. If you read further into the article originally posted, you'll notice the prisoner in question refused to aid in his own defense, which would certainly extend the period of time in which it would take to successfully prosecute him.

The confusion here results from the fact that he's being held on US soil, in a military prison, as a prisoner of war. Generally, prisoners of war are held within their country of origin in internment camps. The location of this prisoner has given the judiciary system the idea that they are responsible for the judicial disposition of this prisoner.
he is NOT a prisoner of war. he was picked up in the united states allegedly in the middle of setting up some terrorist activities.

he is NOT associated with iraq or any other country that might constitute our "enemies". i dont see how he could be considered an enemy combatant.

he doesnt fall under the geneva conventions. he is an alleged criminal come to the united states to do the bidding of a non-governmental group--alqaeda.

he is NOT a prisoner of war. he was picked up in the united states allegedly in the middle of setting up some terrorist activities. The US Government disagrees and their contentions are being tested in court as we speak. It's a shame the prisoner in question has decide not to participate meaningfully in this case.

he is NOT associated with iraq or any other country that might constitute our "enemies". i dont see how he could be considered an enemy combatant. Just how do you expecte the US, or Spain or Denamark or the UK, for that matter, to fight an enemy that has made a clear declaration of war against us but is not a government? This guy clearly wanted to participate in that war and wanted to commit an act that any sane person would consider an act of war. I'll agree that this has nothing to do with Iraq, however, but I think someone who comes here illegally to kill as many Americans as possible as part of what he defines as a war is clearly en "enemy combatant."

he doesnt fall under the geneva conventions. he is an alleged criminal come to the united states to do the bidding of a non-governmental group--alqaeda.the courts are dealing with that right now. In principle I have no problem with this guy being classified as a prisoner of war. the courts will decide if the evidence compiled by the government warrents that distinction based on the evidence itself and the prisoners response to it, something he has refused to do.

No, he lied on his Visa application to get in and immediately started stealing Social Security numbers and obtaining fake IDs to open fraudulent banks accounts. You are only a LEGAL resident if you do not lie on yoru application and your application explicitly says that to keep your status as a legal resident you have to obey the laws of our country.

No. HE allegedly did that. Innocent until proven guilty. This is the problem. Let's take it for face that illegal aliens do not have constitutional privlidges. The problem was his visa was, at face level, valid. If his visa was on its face valid, then you have to prove it invalid. Because he was here legally he is afforded the constitutional privldges of innocent until proven guilty.

The same evidence that would prove his guilt would prove the invalidity of his visa, however neither have been proven, and before you can invalidate his rights has a legal student, you have to prove that the visa is invalid, which hasn't been done.

It's been ALLEGED certainly, and if the fact are true it would not be difficult to prove.

However until it HAS been proven, under law, his innocence is still presumed. Therefore, since he has not been proven guilty, he is innocent, therefore here legally, therefore is afforded the privlidges of his guilt being proven.

See the problem? You can not begin with the proposition of "he was here illegally" because he was, in fact, here legally. He may have lied which would invalidate it, but the question then becomes, prove it.

The weight is on the government to prove that he was, in fact, lying on his application. Which needs to be PROVEN. Not speculated, despite how heavy that speculation might weigh.

1) The US is currently in a state of war against Iraq. This gives the US certain privileges and perogatives against enemy troops.What is wrong with the people of America that someone actually believes this falsehood? Iraq officially consists of the government we helped install after Saddams regime fell, we are not at war with them. The only state of war that exists is the nebulous and unofficial war on terrorism (note that it is impossible to for a country to declare an official state of war against a concept).

This guy clearly wanted to participate in that war and wanted to commit an act that any sane person would consider an act of war.

No he didn't. The government alleges that he did, but has not proved it, and under our law that which is not proven in a court of law is merely an allegation, not a proven fact.

Few things, and I'll parrot some posters:

1- If the evidence is so solid, then go to trial already!

2- If he lied on his visa application, and can be deported for it, then deport him already. Is it the custom of deportees to sit in jail on a marine vessel for an indeterminate amount of time?

3- Wether he is a citizen, a tourist, an illegal alien or an alien from outher space, the laws and constitution of the US apply to him. There's no such thing as "he is not a citizen so the constitution doesn'T apply to him." Following that line of logic gives you that:

He is not bound by the constitution, so he didn't break any law. He didn't break any law so he must be released.

Do you really want foreign people to do what they want as they please or would you rather they be protected by the constitution?

What is wrong with the people of America that someone actually believes this falsehood? Iraq officially consists of the government we helped install after Saddams regime fell, we are not at war with them. The only state of war that exists is the nebulous and unofficial war on terrorism (note that it is impossible to for a country to declare an official state of war against a concept).

So we're the same as in the Korean war, a police action?

Few things, and I'll parrot some posters:

1- If the evidence is so solid, then go to trial already!

2- If he lied on his visa application, and can be deported for it, then deport him already. Is it the custom of deportees to sit in jail on a marine vessel for an indeterminate amount of time?

3- Wether he is a citizen, a tourist, an illegal alien or an alien from outher space, the laws and constitution of the US apply to him. There's no such thing as "he is not a citizen so the constitution doesn'T apply to him." Following that line of logic gives you that:

He is not bound by the constitution, so he didn't break any law. He didn't break any law so he must be released.

Do you really want foreign people to do what they want as they please or would you rather they be protected by the constitution?

1) agreed

2) agreed, but let us remember, a deportation hearing is still a hearing, and the burden of proof is still on the government to PROVE he lied. That has not been done. Therefore under law he has not proven to have lied, therefore his visa was still valid.

3) That's actually incorrect...it's never been held that illegal immigrants are protected by constitutional amendments. Legal residents, however, are, and he was a legal resident.

4) Not being bound by the constitution is not the same as not being bound by federal law. The United States has the soveign power to regulate activities within its borders...within the limits that the constitution imposes upon it.

What is wrong with the people of America that someone actually believes this falsehood? Iraq officially consists of the government we helped install after Saddams regime fell, we are not at war with them. The only state of war that exists is the nebulous and unofficial war on terrorism (note that it is impossible to for a country to declare an official state of war against a concept).

The confusion here seems to stem from the fact that many don't understand how the "state of war" works.

In 1991, the US declared war on Iraq. This statement of war was never rescinded. Until it is, the US is officially at a state of war with Iraq. Whether or not we act on it is completely up to the US military departments, Congress, and the head of state (i.e. commander in chief, el presidente).

The fact that we were in a de facto truce with Iraq for several years between the original engagement and the continuing engagement after 2001 makes no difference. The state of war still existed.

Qatar consistently supported, aided and abetted Iraq during the original engagement. The Geneva Convention specifies legitimate prisoners of war coming from:

(2) Members of other militias and members of other volunteer corps, including those of organized resistance movements, belonging to a Party to the conflict and operating in or outside their own territory, even if this territory is occupied, provided that such militias or volunteer corps, including such organized resistance movements, fulfil the following conditions:[ (a) that of being commanded by a person responsible for his subordinates; (b) that of having a fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance; (c) that of carrying arms openly; (d) that of conducting their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war.

A Quatarian citizen, acting as a volunteer member of the de facto Iraqian army, continuing the engagement and war declared on Iraq in 1991, constitutes a legitimate prisoner of war.

Oh dear. Thoughtcrime-tastic.

We're getting to a similar state of affairs in the UK, too, which is a shame.

But this is slightly ridiculous, to be honest. Locking people up because they're "suspicious" or whatever is pretty poor. How can they possibly prove that he was a terrorist or whatever?

Or is it like in the UK, where evidence is no longer needed to detain people, because "The public doesn't really need to know how we got this information".

Eugh...

The confusion here seems to stem from the fact that many don't understand how the "state of war" works.

In 1991, the US declared war on Iraq. This statement of war was never rescinded. Until it is, the US is officially at a state of war with Iraq. Whether or not we act on it is completely up to the US military departments, Congress, and the head of state (i.e. commander in chief, el presidente).

The fact that we were in a de facto truce with Iraq for several years between the original engagement and the continuing engagement after 2001 makes no difference. The state of war still existed.

Qatar consistently supported, aided and abetted Iraq during the original engagement. The Geneva Convention specifies legitimate prisoners of war coming from:

(2) Members of other militias and members of other volunteer corps, including those of organized resistance movements, belonging to a Party to the conflict and operating in or outside their own territory, even if this territory is occupied, provided that such militias or volunteer corps, including such organized resistance movements, fulfil the following conditions:[ (a) that of being commanded by a person responsible for his subordinates; (b) that of having a fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance; (c) that of carrying arms openly; (d) that of conducting their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war.

A Quatarian citizen, acting as a volunteer member of the de facto Iraqian army, continuing the engagement and war declared on Iraq in 1991, constitutes a legitimate prisoner of war.All official Iraqi POW's have been released with the exception of those awaiting trial for war crimes.

So by your logic why hasn't this guy been released or charged with a war crime?

1) agreed

2) agreed, but let us remember, a deportation hearing is still a hearing, and the burden of proof is still on the government to PROVE he lied. That has not been done. Therefore under law he has not proven to have lied, therefore his visa was still valid.
I like you. You're one of the level headed.

3) That's actually incorrect...it's never been held that illegal immigrants are protected by constitutional amendments. Legal residents, however, are, and he was a legal resident.

4) Not being bound by the constitution is not the same as not being bound by federal law. The United States has the soveign power to regulate activities within its borders...within the limits that the constitution imposes upon it.
Illegal immigrants are bound by the law of the land. The law of the land comes from the constitution who established the federal government, basic right, etc. The law comes from the constitution is my main point.

Now, if the illegal immigrant, ennemy combatant, what-have-you is not bound by the constitution, then he is therefore not bound by the law of the land. As such, plotting to overthrow the government is perfectly legal *for him* as he does not have to follow the law.

Is what i'm describing ludicrous? I certainly hope so! But that is the logic that those who want to dump him in the middle of the atlantic ocean advocate. (And what bastards these people are. I despise them all. Most are on my ignore list to make sure I don't get banned for attacking their character.)

Now, on the other hand, if he is bound by the law of the land, and the constitution, then he does have 5th amendment rights and all that jazz. Unless I see a law that says illegal immigrant are not granted 5th amendment rights, then that's the ball game.

In 1991, the US declared war on Iraq.

Actually, the last time the US declared war on anyone was against Hungary on June 5, 1942. The two wars against Iraq were not declared wars, they were Congressionally authorized military engagements.

An important distinction as no clear cut "state of war" exists.

This isn't the only assault they've made on the 5th. Remember Kelo?

The confusion here seems to stem from the fact that many don't understand how the "state of war" works.

In 1991, the US declared war on Iraq. This statement of war was never rescinded. Until it is, the US is officially at a state of war with Iraq. Whether or not we act on it is completely up to the US military departments, Congress, and the head of state (i.e. commander in chief, el presidente).

The fact that we were in a de facto truce with Iraq for several years between the original engagement and the continuing engagement after 2001 makes no difference. The state of war still existed.

Qatar consistently supported, aided and abetted Iraq during the original engagement. The Geneva Convention specifies legitimate prisoners of war coming from:

(2) Members of other militias and members of other volunteer corps, including those of organized resistance movements, belonging to a Party to the conflict and operating in or outside their own territory, even if this territory is occupied, provided that such militias or volunteer corps, including such organized resistance movements, fulfil the following conditions:[ (a) that of being commanded by a person responsible for his subordinates; (b) that of having a fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance; (c) that of carrying arms openly; (d) that of conducting their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war.

A Quatarian citizen, acting as a volunteer member of the de facto Iraqian army, continuing the engagement and war declared on Iraq in 1991, constitutes a legitimate prisoner of war.
The problem with your logic is that a cease-fire has been declared by the UN on this war and only the UN can declare a breack of the cease-fire and a resuming of hostilities. Has the UN done so?

The laws regarding prisoners of war do not work that way. You might as well say that when you catch an enemy combatant firing at your troops that you should put him on criminal trial first in order to establish that he was, in fact, firing on your troops. No country in the world would do that.

This guy lied on his Visa application. He said he had only been here once before in 1990. He was here in 2000. That' not based on hearsay, it's based on phone, bank and hotel records as well as testimony from hotel employees.

Both prior to and after the attacks of 9/11 he called, from his phone and using his calling card and PIN number, the Al Qeada operative responsible for funding the 9/11 attacks. Again, this is not hearsay, it's phone records. He also had direct financial contact through some of the bogus bank accounts he set up.

Hundreds of credit card numbers, many of which were valid, were found on his computer and on reciepts in his apartment. None of them were registered to him. Many had been used to funnel money to "AAA Carpets" - a company that never existed and whoes address was the same address as the hotel he stayed at in 2000. This again is backed up by hard evidence, not hearsay.

On his computer were found sermons from Bin Laden as well as personal writings that, without retyping them here, clearly show his political/religious affiliation. Again, not hearsay but hard evidence.

On his computer were found links to websites that had detailed instructions on how to make chemical weapons as well as ways to obtain the chemicals necessary to make them. Not hearsay, hard evidence

As far as I'm concerned, this is the same as walking in on a sniper about to blast some of your troops except it's worse because his target probably had more to do with a sporting event or shopping mall than with any military target. You don't put prisoners of war on trial, you take them prisoner. In most cases that's end of story. In this case, I agree. The governments power to do that should be checked, and it is being checked. There is curently a court case that is affording this guy the right to refute the allegations and the evidence. He has taxpayer funded lawyers helping him do just that. You guys keep acting as though there is no judicial process in this case, but there clearly is or we wouldn't be talking about some JUDGES ruling. If he can show that the evidence is not strong enough to support the enemy combatant designation he will get his criminal trial. He might want to actually do that, though. So far he has refused.

It also bears note that both Jose Padilla and Moussaui were able to get there designation as enemy combatants removed. If this guy shows any kind of meaningfull effort to refute the claims of the government his probabbly will, too.

1) agreed

2) agreed, but let us remember, a deportation hearing is still a hearing, and the burden of proof is still on the government to PROVE he lied. That has not been done. Therefore under law he has not proven to have lied, therefore his visa was still valid.
You sure about that? I don't know that the ICE, at the time the INS, hadn't gone through the proceedings.

Illegal immigrants are bound by the law of the land. The law of the land comes from the constitution who established the federal government, basic right, etc. The law comes from the constitution is my main point.

Now, if the illegal immigrant, ennemy combatant, what-have-you is not bound by the constitution, then he is therefore not bound by the law of the land. As such, plotting to overthrow the government is perfectly legal *for him* as he does not have to follow the law.

Is what i'm describing ludicrous? I certainly hope so! But that is the logic that those who want to dump him in the middle of the atlantic ocean advocate. (And what bastards these people are. I despise them all. Most are on my ignore list to make sure I don't get banned for attacking their character.)

Now, on the other hand, if he is bound by the law of the land, and the constitution, then he does have 5th amendment rights and all that jazz. Unless I see a law that says illegal immigrant are not granted 5th amendment rights, then that's the ball game.

To be fair, we have to look at the wording of the bill of rights, and other amendments.

The first 10 state "the people", and the 14th is even more specific to state specifically CITIZENS.

Now the supreme court has held that the "people" definitly refers to citizens. It also has held that the rights of citizens extend to those in this country legally. It has never been stated that it extends to illegal aliens however.

That being said, the constitution in and of itself deals largely with the powers of the legislative executive and judicial branches. It is perfectly within the powers of a sovereign government to pass laws that influence all those within the borders.

To say that the constitution does not protect illegal aliens does nothing more than say that for illegal aliens, the rights within the constitution do not apply. It is incorrect to say that, if amendments that specifically spell out rights of the PEOPLE of the united states (which has been interpreted to apply to legal aliens as well) do not apply to illegal aliens, then any laws that Congress passes pursuant to their congressional powers also do not apply.

It only means that the AMENDMENTS to the constitution do not apply to illegal aliens. It in no way limits the power of congress, pursuant to their constitutional authority, to pass laws that affect illegal aliens. Only that these amendments do not.

I rarely get to pull out my "trust me, I'm a lawyer" card, but in this case...trust me, I'm a lawyer.

Oh dear. Thoughtcrime-tastic.

We're getting to a similar state of affairs in the UK, too, which is a shame.

But this is slightly ridiculous, to be honest. Locking people up because they're "suspicious" or whatever is pretty poor. How can they possibly prove that he was a terrorist or whatever?

Or is it like in the UK, where evidence is no longer needed to detain people, because "The public doesn't really need to know how we got this information".

Eugh...
Yeah, this was all based on what the FBI "thought" he was "thinking."

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=10967968&postcount=168

You sure about that? I don't know that the ICE, at the time the INS, hadn't gone through the proceedings.

The government can invalidate a visa any time it wants to. This however was not the case, the claim made on this forum was that the visa was invalid from the start, due to the fact that he lied on an application. While the government could simply void his visa at any point, which would then project forwards to invalidate a visa they must present evidents of the "lie" that would invalidate it.

Sure, DHS could just kill the visa at any time, but to state that it was invalid from the start must have some presentation of fact in that case.

Yeah, this was all based on what the FBI "thought" he was "thinking."

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=10967968&postcount=168

Oh... I see...