Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Srexley who wrote (208138)	12/8/2001 1:13:19 AM
From: DuckTapeSunroof	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 769670

Re: "Sorry about the length. I get carried away." ... No problem. Me too. Re: "Civil liberties groups this week filed the first lawsuit requesting disclosure of basic information about individuals arrested and detained." ... I'm no lawyer, but when you've got people secretly locked up down in the 'hoos-gaw' (well, let's call it secretly 'cause no one knows their names... that is, except for the ones who arrested them... no, that's not right, they aren't officially arrested yet 'cause they haven't been officially charged with anything yet... no, I think out of around 3000 people maybe 12 have been charged with overstaying their visas or something... the rest are just ... there. Can't leave. Can't talk.) ... What I mean is - even though I guess they are mostly 'fureners', and therefore they don't have any REAL rights like you and I as good 'Maricans' - even considering that... how long is it A-OK to hold 'em without charging 'em with something... or letting someone know their names? ... We'll be heading up on three months pretty soon for some of 'em... Is 6 months OK to hold someone without charging with anything? How about 9 months, or 12 months? At which point do you say "Oh, the hell with it. I can't find anything to charge this one guy with... I guess three years in jail incommunicato is long enough for him." ... Now for the really interesting point. Have you ever been overseas? Say you are on a business trip next year to... oh, say... SouthEast Asia. Or maybe somewhere in Africa, or elsewhere. ... Say you get accused of something (by an anonymous source, of course)... only you never know of what. You are just picked up by the local policia and held for a few months while they politely question you about whatever they want. Since you are not a citizen of that country (you are just another 'furner'), you don't have any rights under their constitution. What if they won't respond to any inquiries about whether they have you or not, and no one at home knows where you are? ... Is this the world you want to live in? RE: "There is mounting evidence that secrecy is being invoked to shield serious violations." ... That was the charge of the 15 civil liberties organizations who brought the suit. I'm not privy to their information, so who knows the truth of the allegations? All I know I read. The suit (and others) will playout, and over the years the facts will out (hopefully). Re: "Justice Department officials have repeatedly stated that the rights of all detainees are being upheld. But at every turn, the options for independent oversight of the Department's activities have been curtailed." And your question: "Is independent oversight a constitutional right?" ... Er, yes it is. An independent Judiciary is specificly provided for. But since the Dept. of Justice say's everything is hunkie-dorie, I guess we don't need recourse to judges, or open public trials. Hell, we don't need trials at all, if the prosecutors say they are guilty than let's just keep 'em all locked up. After all, these guys at Justice are... well they're part of the GOVERNMENT! They are POLITICAL APPOINTEES and likesuch. No need for the other branches of the Government to butt in! ... (What's that you say about 'Balance of Powers' being how the Constitution and Bill of Rights structured our government? What's that you say about that being the 'Highest Law in the Land', and 'Above All Others'? Are you saying that if you break a few little laws, then it's OK to break the big ones too?) RE: "Instead of the Attorney General simply announcing that they are respecting the Constitution, we need the evidence that will show whether that is true," said Ms. Martin. And your comment: 'They need evidence to prove someone is telling the truth?' ... Er, YES. ... Or as President Nixon used to say (via way of Kissinger), when talking about dealing with the Russians: ... "Trust, but Verify!"