Aces High Bulletin Board

General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: Sandman on April 05, 2003, 02:21:36 PM

Title: This is justice?
Post by: Sandman on April 05, 2003, 02:21:36 PM
http://www.freemikehawash.org/oldindex.html
Title: This is justice?
Post by: blitz on April 05, 2003, 02:26:54 PM
Weather is fine at Guatanamo bay and they looking great in that  orange suits :(


Regards Blitz
Title: This is justice?
Post by: john9001 on April 05, 2003, 02:30:26 PM
another "sleeper" gats caught
Title: This is justice?
Post by: Sandman on April 05, 2003, 02:32:50 PM
I do not recall any 911 terrorists that were U.S. citizens. In fact, the only U.S. terrorist that comes to mind was a white guy named McVeigh.
Title: This is justice?
Post by: Rockstar on April 05, 2003, 02:33:37 PM
So he's being detained as a material witness.  What has he said? what has his wife and children said? Oh I forgot the friends of this character said there's a GAG order in place, how convieniant.  Where are is wife and children? Who wrote this story?  Who is sponsering this rally? Why do they need money? Where will this money go? If released will they greet him open arms or is someone waiting to assassinate him because they're afraid he may have talked?

Clearly a left wing wacko attempt to break the very fabric of this great nation.
Title: This is justice?
Post by: john9001 on April 05, 2003, 02:36:52 PM
""This is justice? """

no , mr sandman , it's war
Title: This is justice?
Post by: Sandman on April 05, 2003, 02:37:56 PM
Quote
Originally posted by john9001
""This is justice? """

no , mr sandman , it's war


We're making war against U.S. citizens now?


EDIT: More info --
Quote
ACLU of Oregon Criticizes Use of Material Witness Law to Detain U.S. Citizen
 
 
April 3, 2003
 



FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

PORTLAND - The American Civil Liberties Union of Oregon today criticized the U.S. Justice Department’s use of the material witness statute to detain Maher "Mike" Hawash, a resident of nearby Hillsboro.

"The use of material witness warrants and attorney gag orders has been part of the Justice Department’s campaign of detention and secrecy targeting Muslim and Arab Americans during the past 18 months," said David Fidanque, Executive Director of the ACLU of Oregon

"The material witness process was designed to be used in cases where there is a great risk that a witness may flee the jurisdiction to avoid testifying," he added, noting that Hawash is a U.S. citizen with strong ties to the local community. "It is designed to preserve evidence, not to indefinitely detain individuals who haven’t been charged with a crime."

FBI agents and members of the Portland Joint Terrorism Task Force arrested Hawash on March 20; he is reportedly being held in solitary confinement at the federal prison in Sheridan.

At the same time Hawash was arrested in a parking lot at Intel Corporation, where he works, agents searched his home and served his wife, Lisa Hawash, with a grand jury subpoena.

According to a November 2002 Washington Post story on the use of material witness warrants, more than 40 people have been detained by the Justice Department since September 11, 2001. As of that time, seven of those were U.S. citizens. Federal trial courts have differed on whether the Justice Department’s actions comply with the law or the Constitution.

Fidanque said the ACLU believes the Justice Department is using the law to "bring the full weight of the U.S. government down on individuals and their families to coerce them into doing whatever the government wants."

"All of this has been shrouded in secrecy," Fidanque said. "Since the Justice Department won’t release any information and the lawyers of those who have been detained are under gag orders, there is no way for the public to evaluate whether these unprecedented measures are justified.

What we do know is that our Constitution was designed to prevent government officials from secretly snatching individuals, holding them in isolation for weeks and frightening their families."

"If someone is suspected of a crime, go ahead and arrest him if you have the evidence. If you need someone to testify before a grand jury, give him a subpoena and let him testify."

Friends and co-workers of Hawash have established a website related to his case, which can be found at http://www.freemikehawash.org

Mike Hawash was born in Nablus on the West Bank and was raised in Kuwait before emigrating to the U.S. in 1984. He became a citizen in 1988 after receiving his undergraduate degree from the University of Texas. He has lived in Hillsboro since 1992 and has been a software design employee and contractor for Intel since that time. He and his wife are raising three children.
Title: This is justice?
Post by: Batz on April 05, 2003, 02:41:31 PM
So because you havent heard about them doesnt mean they arent any. And there been many US "terrorists" that werent white. Look it up.

You link us to biased site that contains very little info other then propaganda designed to elicit funds and maybe some mild "outrage". Big Deal.

Quote
Q. Why is Mike being detained?

A. According to press reports citing the Mike is being detained as a “material witness,” but his friends and the public have been given no further explanation or detail of  the reasons for his detention.  Mike's and Lisa's attorneys are working under a court seal -- a "gag order", which also applies to other people in the justice system.  So far, any proceedings that have occurred have been sealed, so we have no way to find out the reason for Mike's detention.  No one has told us why he is being held.


What injustice are you speaking about. The fact you are uninformed as to why he his held?

Quote
Our information is that material witness detentions are legitimate for the purposes of securing testimony when the witness with material information is either a flight risk or a danger to the community.


Quote
Q. What is a “material witness?”

A. This is defined as any person who may have information pertaining to a criminal investigation for the purpose of testifying before a grand jury or during a criminal proceeding. A federal judge must determine whether the person is, in fact, a material witness and whether he may be detained. Detainment is supposed to be required only if there is a risk of flight or danger.


Oh the injustice of it all :rolleyes:
Title: This is justice?
Post by: Batz on April 05, 2003, 02:46:40 PM
That press release is nothing but spin like that website. They dont know why he is being held. A federal judge ordered him held as well as the gag order. Justice is working just likes its supposed to. The burden is on the government to show why he needs to be held and a judge agreed with him.

You are linking and quoting folks who werent a part of that process and have no idea about the facts.

Again big deal.
Title: This is justice?
Post by: Sandman on April 05, 2003, 02:48:33 PM
It doesn't trouble you that someone can be arrested and detained without public disclosure?

It doesn't seem the least bit un-Constitutional?


Wow... you guys worry me. You really do.
Title: This is justice?
Post by: Batz on April 05, 2003, 02:51:51 PM
What right do you have to "public disclosure". The guy has a lawyer, a judge agreed with governments position and ordered him held. Thats "due process".
Title: This is justice?
Post by: Sandman on April 05, 2003, 03:01:57 PM
Quote
Originally posted by Batz
What right do you have to "public disclosure". The guy has a lawyer, a judge agreed with governments position and ordered him held. Thats "due process".


According to Hawash's employer, Steven McCready, no one knows why he is being held, not Hawash, not his wife, nor his attorney.

This is due process?


EDIT: Another link: http://news.statesmanjournal.com/article.cfm?i=59377
and another: http://news.statesmanjournal.com/article.cfm?i=59495
Title: This is justice?
Post by: Batz on April 05, 2003, 03:19:49 PM
Quote
Mike's and Lisa's attorneys are working under a court seal -- a "gag order", which also applies to other people in the justice system.  So far, any proceedings that have occurred have been sealed, so we have no way to find out the reason for Mike's detention.  No one has told us why he is being held.


From that sites FAQ.

quote from one of the sites you linked

Quote
Hawash’s attorneys can’t discuss the case because they are bound by a federal gag order. Hawash’s wife, Lisa, won’t talk about it because she fears repercussions.


I have read each link you posted on this and it would seems his attorneys are informed but bound by the gag order. He has a lawyer and  he has went before a federal judge. Thats as good as it gets.

I really dont care what his employer or advocates say as they arent privy to any more info.

Feel free to work yourself up over it.
Title: This is justice?
Post by: Martlet on April 05, 2003, 04:46:09 PM
American Justice at work.  Thank God.  One more threat to society off the streets.

Good work.
Title: This is justice?
Post by: SaburoS on April 05, 2003, 04:56:33 PM
Quote
This is justice?

Of coarse not, welcome to the new Amerika (since 9-11). Goose-stepping optional. I guess the Constitution and the Bill of Rights are just written words on paper with no real meaning. By all means let's continue modifying it....until it no longer supports liberty and freedom. :rolleyes:
Title: This is justice?
Post by: SaburoS on April 05, 2003, 05:02:49 PM
Quote
Originally posted by Martlet
American Justice at work.  Thank God.  One more threat to society off the streets.

Good work.


Why is he a threat?
Title: This is justice?
Post by: Sandman on April 05, 2003, 05:05:19 PM
Didn't they tell you? The innocent are never arrested.
Title: This is justice?
Post by: Dowding on April 05, 2003, 05:11:28 PM
"See you at the 2 minute hate!"
Title: This is justice?
Post by: SaburoS on April 05, 2003, 05:16:32 PM
Our founding fathers are probably rolling in their graves now. Our soldiers didn't sacrifice their lives for this.
Title: This is justice?
Post by: Saurdaukar on April 05, 2003, 06:59:20 PM
Jesus - some of you guys should be working for the CIA - you read a simple web page and KNOW this guy is being held without REASON!  Im astonished!  What kind of idiots are working for the government these days anyway?  Geesh!  :rolleyes:
Title: This is justice?
Post by: SaburoS on April 05, 2003, 07:39:43 PM
Quote
Originally posted by Saurdaukar
Jesus - some of you guys should be working for the CIA - you read a simple web page and KNOW this guy is being held without REASON!  Im astonished!  What kind of idiots are working for the government these days anyway?  Geesh!  :rolleyes:


No, the issue is that we DON'T know why he is being detained....and may never know. I take it you're saying it's okay to detain someone indefinitely without charges being filed? I'm saying it's not okay. Clear enough for you? :rolleyes:
Title: This is justice?
Post by: Martlet on April 05, 2003, 08:08:51 PM
Quote
Originally posted by SaburoS
Why is he a threat?


Who knows.  I guess we'll find out when he is charged and goes to trial.

I have complete faith in our justice system.
Title: This is justice?
Post by: Sandman on April 05, 2003, 08:09:53 PM
Guess that's the difference. I have absolutely no faith in Ashcroft.
Title: This is justice?
Post by: Martlet on April 05, 2003, 08:16:33 PM
Quote
Originally posted by Sandman_SBM
Guess that's the difference. I have absolutely no faith in Ashcroft.


you're an idiot, noone expects you to have faith in anything.  Move to France, you and straffo can concoct your anti american speaches together.
Title: This is justice?
Post by: Sandman on April 05, 2003, 08:18:10 PM
Such an intelligent retort... :rolleyes:
Title: This is justice?
Post by: Martlet on April 05, 2003, 08:22:17 PM
Quote
Originally posted by Sandman_SBM
Such an intelligent retort... :rolleyes:


If the shoe fits....
Title: This is justice?
Post by: Sandman on April 05, 2003, 08:24:45 PM
It doesn't fit at all... that was sarcasm, smart guy.
Title: This is justice?
Post by: Martlet on April 05, 2003, 08:26:55 PM
Quote
Originally posted by Sandman_SBM
It doesn't fit at all... that was sarcasm, smart guy.


I realize that.

I don't have the desire to put the meaning into the third grade reading level it would require for you to understand it.

Go get your mom to explain it to you.

smart guy.
Title: This is justice?
Post by: Sandman on April 05, 2003, 08:29:29 PM
Gee thanks Dad.
Title: This is justice?
Post by: Tumor on April 05, 2003, 08:49:02 PM
I think before I whine about it I'll wait and find out why they went to all the trouble to detain him.
Title: This is justice?
Post by: Batz on April 05, 2003, 09:07:49 PM
He is not detained in expectation of criminal charges. Hes detained as a "material witness". The Supreme Court of the US allows "material witnesses" to held until they testify. Its not against constitution or any law.

Quote
our founding fathers are probably rolling in their graves now


They already spun themselves into dust during Lincoln's presidency. If not FDR and Johnson finished them off.

Never has "original intent" been a part of our legal system. So whatever the "founding fathers" originally intended means nothing. The founding fathers never intended for a federal of the size and scope we have now.

A liberal bringing up original intent is comical any way.

Theres nothing illegal immoral or unconstutional about this guys current treatment. His wife admits he has given money to an organization that funnels money to terrorists. They have confiscated his computer and some financial records. But the fact you dont know why hes held is immaterial. The government is well within its rights and a federal judge has to agree with them.
Title: This is justice?
Post by: Tumor on April 05, 2003, 09:12:35 PM
Quote
Originally posted by Batz
He is not detained in expectation of criminal charges. Hes detained as a "material witness". The Supreme Court of the US allows "material witnesses" to held until they testify. Its not against constitution or any law.



They already spun themselves into dust during Lincoln's presidency. If not FDR and Johnson finished them off.

Never has "original intent" been a part of our legal system. So whatever the "founding fathers" originally intended means nothing. The founding fathers never intended for a federal of the size and scope we have now.

A liberal bringing up original intent is comical any way.

Theres nothing illegal immoral or unconstutional about this guys current treatment. His wife admits he has given money to an organization that funnels money to terrorists. They have confiscated his computer and some financial records. But the fact you dont know why hes held is immaterial. The government is well within its rights and a federal judge has to agree with them.


NononononNO!!  He should be allowed to do whatever bad things he wants until he's found guilty and sentenced to 20 lashes with a wet noodle by liberal judge.
Title: This is justice?
Post by: Sandman on April 05, 2003, 09:17:36 PM
I'm not a lawyer, but it sure sounds like a violation of his 4th Amendment rights.

The lawyers at the ACLU certainly believe there are Constitutional "issues" with this case.

Whatever it is... a government that siezes people for secret reasons can't be a good thing, IMHO.
Title: This is justice?
Post by: john9001 on April 05, 2003, 09:40:34 PM
ACLU = American Communist Lawyers Union
Title: This is justice?
Post by: Saurdaukar on April 06, 2003, 01:01:27 AM
Quote
Originally posted by SaburoS
No, the issue is that we DON'T know why he is being detained....

Clear enough for you? :rolleyes:



ROFL!  And who are you to require such knowledge?  LOL!!!

Go back to flying your La7 and let the government do its job.

The nerve.  
:rolleyes:
Title: This is justice?
Post by: Batz on April 06, 2003, 01:31:33 AM
The ACLU doesnt defend the constitution, they defend a liberal view of the world.

This guys isnt the first guy held as a "material witness". Wheres all the law suites?

If theres all the violations going on why are judges allowing the detentions?

Is all part of the massive right wing conspiracy to bring forth a police state?

The truth is out there and seems you believe you have it cornered.

Which one of us is next.....ohh its scary........:o
Title: This is justice?
Post by: Sandman on April 06, 2003, 01:35:49 AM
The Justice Department will not release any figures on witness detentions linked to terrorism investigations.

I wonder why.
Title: This is justice?
Post by: GRUNHERZ on April 06, 2003, 01:49:16 AM
Sandman what evidence do you have that this man did nothing to warrant his detention?

What evidence do ytou have a judge approved his detention without sufficent consideration.

What relevance is it that he has a family, a job a wife and kids or is a citizen? Are you saying any of these factors preclude anyone from engaging in terrorism activities or betraying his country?
Title: This is justice?
Post by: Sandman on April 06, 2003, 01:57:57 AM
Got a flaw in your logic... proving the existance of nothing.

Put it this way... the judicial process is typically a public one. Warrants, indictments, etc are all matter of public record. Being incarcerated for secret reasons is the kind of crap they pulled in Germany, circa 1940. It's wrong.
Title: This is justice?
Post by: GRUNHERZ on April 06, 2003, 03:13:44 AM
Then go ahead and prove the existance of "something" that says he does not deserve his detention...

You know the public does not have the right to know everyting all the time there are plenty of secrets in sensitive cases now and there always have been...

You just wanna make a martyr of him because you are a liberal and he is a muslim of color- cant beat that combo, hell I bet you creamed in your pants when you came across this case. Victim! Victim! Victim!

You know Sandman there are terrorists who dont look like Tim McVeigh - yea sorry to break that to ya...
Title: This is justice?
Post by: Sandman on April 06, 2003, 03:17:38 AM
His color is irrelevant.
Title: This is justice?
Post by: SaburoS on April 06, 2003, 03:17:54 AM
It isn't a liberal thing, nor is it a conservative thing. It's a civil liberties thing. It's one important thing that sets this country apart from communist and facist totalitarian regimes.

Presumed innocent until proven guilty is a powerful concept. Seems we're entering a phase of presumed guilty until proven innocent. Very un-American if you ask me.
Title: This is justice?
Post by: Sandman on April 06, 2003, 03:19:12 AM
...but Saburo, earlier it was stated that civil liberties are a liberal thing, they don't obviously apply to conservatives. :)
Title: This is justice?
Post by: GRUNHERZ on April 06, 2003, 03:21:15 AM
Quote
Originally posted by Sandman_SBM
His color is irrelevant.


Bullchit, just as irrelevent that he is a mulsim and and arab...  It makes an extra special victim for you...
Title: This is justice?
Post by: GRUNHERZ on April 06, 2003, 03:22:59 AM
Quote
Originally posted by SaburoS
Presumed innocent until proven guilty is a powerful concept. Seems we're entering a phase of presumed guilty until proven innocent. Very un-American if you ask me.


Uhmm we jail tons of people for a long long time and deny them bail before they are ever convicted..
Title: This is justice?
Post by: Sandman on April 06, 2003, 03:27:02 AM
Quote
Originally posted by GRUNHERZ
Bullchit, just as irrelevent that he is a mulsim and and arab...  It makes an extra special victim for you...


Wow... Check out the brain on Brad. Not only can he think for himself, he can think for me too. Thanks Grun!
Title: This is justice?
Post by: Sandman on April 06, 2003, 03:27:35 AM
Quote
Originally posted by GRUNHERZ
Uhmm we jail tons of people for a long long time and deny them bail before they are ever convicted..


These people are at least charged with a crime.
Title: This is justice?
Post by: GRUNHERZ on April 06, 2003, 03:40:37 AM
And he is being held as material witness, thats a different classifaction - no charges need to be filed as I understand it..
Title: This is justice?
Post by: Sandman on April 06, 2003, 03:45:34 AM
It's a convenient label, but the man is still being held without a charge, without bail and without due process.
Title: This is justice?
Post by: SaburoS on April 06, 2003, 03:46:10 AM
Quote
Originally posted by GRUNHERZ
Uhmm we jail tons of people for a long long time and deny them bail before they are ever convicted..


Big difference. They are usually charged w/in the first 48-72 hours. Given their Miranda rights and given the right of councel. They are given the right to a speedy trial and in most cases (where flight risk is minimal* and not a threat to the public) they are given an opportunity to post bail until their court appearance. Most importantly those cases are public record.
Why is it necessary for you to go on the "offensive" and attack the messenger instead of arguing the issues? Are your points not strong enough to stand on their own? I don't know the person arrested. I do not care about his religeous beliefs. I do not care about his cultural/racial background.
What I care about is a fellow American citizen being detained without charges for a undetermined amount of time by our government. The fact that you and some others fail to see that is very frustrating indeed. Get over the fact that I happen to care about our Constitution, Bill of rights, and Civil Liberties for ALL AMERICANS.

**********
john9001,
You care to name even one communist nation that had/has civil liberties? Don't hold your breath searching for your answer.
Now suppose you give examples of how the ACLU is trying to strip us of our civil liberties and push us towards a communist totalitarian state.

*edited to add 'is minimal'
Title: This is justice?
Post by: GRUNHERZ on April 06, 2003, 03:55:47 AM
Where have I made any personal attacks in this thread?

The cosest I got to it is saying that liberals tend to fawn over certain special "victims" groups. Surely thats something you can tolerate as a general concept and take is an insult.
Title: This is justice?
Post by: SaburoS on April 06, 2003, 04:02:20 AM
Quote
Bullchit, just as irrelevent that he is a mulsim and and arab... It makes an extra special victim for you...


You somehow need to twist around facts. Where did Sandman say he was concerned because of race and religion?

But it is sooo important for you to put your spin on arguments just so you can argue against your own statements that you somehow attribute to those you argue with.
Title: This is justice?
Post by: GRUNHERZ on April 06, 2003, 04:13:27 AM
It does matter to liberals,  look how how he immdeiately pointed out that a white man Tim McVeigh was a terrorist - in a thread where he argues that an arab muslim man is wrongly held under suspicion of teeorism. The implication is that this man is wrongly victimized becaiuse he is an arab and a muslim.


Quote
I do not recall any 911 terrorists that were U.S. citizens. In fact, the only U.S. terrorist that comes to mind was a white guy named McVeigh.
Title: This is justice?
Post by: rpm on April 06, 2003, 04:21:52 AM
Wasn't this an episode of The Rockford Files?
Title: This is justice?
Post by: SaburoS on April 06, 2003, 04:40:30 AM
Quote
Originally posted by GRUNHERZ
It does matter to liberals,  look how how he immdeiately pointed out that a white man Tim McVeigh was a terrorist - in a thread where he argues that an arab muslim man is wrongly held under suspicion of teeorism. The implication is that this man is wrongly victimized becaiuse he is an arab and a muslim.


Perhaps he was responding to john9001's post:

Quote
another "sleeper" gats caught

 
Seems john was implying that this American being detained was somehow part of Al Quaida being part of a "sleeper cell" because he happens to be possibly muslim and is an Arab-American. John9001 first implied the connection, not Sandman.

Looked like Sandman was responding that the actual terrorists of 9/11 were not Americans. He did state to john9001 about Tim McVeigh to perhaps refocus his attention that it's not only Arab-Americans we should be watching out for (After all it was Timothy McVeigh being responsible for the biggest terrorist attack against America by an American).

Sandman implies that a fellow American may be wrongly detained under the current situation regardless of his background and/or his beliefs.

Let's cut to the chase:
You say it's okay to detain indefinitely and without charges some fellow Americans without due process.
I say it is wrong. Even if it was you, john9001, or any "anti-civil liberties" person being detained.
Title: This is justice?
Post by: SaburoS on April 06, 2003, 04:49:55 AM
Quote
Originally posted by GRUNHERZ
It does matter to liberals,  look how how he immdeiately pointed out that a white man Tim McVeigh was a terrorist - in a thread where he argues that an arab muslim man is wrongly held under suspicion of teeorism. The implication is that this man is wrongly victimized becaiuse he is an arab and a muslim.


 Why the need to paint with a broad brush? Do you even know the definition of "liberal" and "conservative"? Show me a post where your defined "liberals" show support of actual terrorists because of their being arab and/or muslim? Again, another "argument" made up attributing it to the "liberals" here.
Show me where "liberals" here supported the 9/11 terrorists. Osama Bin Laden?

Your stating it so doesn't make it so.
Title: This is justice?
Post by: Mini D on November 11, 2003, 01:15:54 PM
An update to this...

Mike Hawash (who, quite mysteriously, looked nothing like the picture posted on the linked websight because the site authors believed that his current appearance would cause people to jump to conclusions) plead guilty to conspiring to fight U.S. soldiers in Afghanistan.  The group he was with attempted to get into Afghanistan through China but were unable to because of restrictions.  All 7 plead guilty.

Not a single website listed in this thread (or via google search) mentions the guilty plea nor the evidence and the charges.

MiniD
Title: This is justice?
Post by: Batz on November 11, 2003, 01:28:19 PM
thanks for the update.

The question is "How will Sandman rationalize his guilty plea?"
Title: This is justice?
Post by: Urchin on November 11, 2003, 01:38:41 PM
Why was he held as a material witness at first then?  Why not charge him with a crime straightaway?
Title: This is justice?
Post by: GtoRA2 on November 11, 2003, 01:52:41 PM
Maybe he claimed to have info about the others?


Hmmm what a ****ing scumbag.
Title: This is justice?
Post by: john9001 on November 11, 2003, 01:56:53 PM
to paraphrase that blond singer with the squeaky voice........"he's not so innocent"
Title: This is justice?
Post by: GtoRA2 on November 11, 2003, 01:59:37 PM
Sandman
 Hey where did you get this new info?
Title: This is justice?
Post by: Martlet on November 11, 2003, 02:00:48 PM
Quote
Originally posted by Martlet
American Justice at work.  Thank God.  One more threat to society off the streets.

Good work.

Quote
Originally posted by SaburoS
Why is he a threat?

Quote
Originally posted by Martlet
Who knows.  I guess we'll find out when he is charged and goes to trial.

I have complete faith in our justice system.

Quote
Originally posted by Sandman_SBM
Guess that's the difference. I have absolutely no faith in Ashcroft.
Title: This is justice?
Post by: Martlet on November 11, 2003, 02:07:49 PM
Quote
Originally posted by GtoRA2
Sandman
 Hey where did you get this new info?


http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,93944,00.html
Title: This is justice?
Post by: DmdNexus on November 11, 2003, 02:12:11 PM
Quote
Originally posted by Batz
What right do you have to "public disclosure". The guy has a lawyer, a judge agreed with governments position and ordered him held. Thats "due process".


Not exactly true..... The judicial system has been giving deference to the government. However, the government has lost several "motions" before the court.

And the Supreme court will make a decision concerning the detainees... which means the claims that citizens are not getting their "due process" are with merit.... are significant enough to be considered and have the Supreme court step in to clarify and put to rest the legality of what the government is doing.

http://www.cnn.com/2003/LAW/11/10/scotus.detainees/index.html
Title: This is justice?
Post by: Frogm4n on November 11, 2003, 02:23:09 PM
even if he is guilty for whatever. The man is a US citizen and if his rights were violated in anyway or he did not recieve due process someone needs to pay for that. This isnt nazi germany( as many of you would like it to be minus the jew killing), your innocent untill proven guilty.
Title: This is justice?
Post by: Batz on November 11, 2003, 02:29:38 PM
That guy wasn't a "detainee" he was held as a material witness. Ultimately, he was charged, confessed and plead guilty to a "real crime". The fact that the public wasnt made aware of why he was being held as a material witness has no bearing on those "detainees" mentioned in the article you linked.

Apples and Oranges
Title: This is justice?
Post by: muckmaw on November 11, 2003, 02:57:55 PM
Sandman.....


Uh.....Saburo....


Care to comment?

Hello?

Is this thing on?

Your little Martyr was going to fight for the Taliban and Al-Quaeda and Kill american soldiers...


Hello?

See, now if I was Sandman or Saburo, I would be a big man about this, wipe the egg off my face and say, "You know what, I was wrong."

Guys?

Your just gonna forget this thread ever happened?

It's easier to run and hide than to face your mistake.

C'mon guys, suck it up.....
Title: This is justice?
Post by: mrblack on November 11, 2003, 03:11:35 PM
How many Lawyers do we have on the board?
And If so how many In constitutional LAw.
In other words none of us know CHIT!:aok
Title: This is justice?
Post by: muckmaw on November 11, 2003, 03:15:22 PM
I think Miko worked for a law firm for a while..

Not sure, though.
Title: This is justice?
Post by: Martlet on November 11, 2003, 03:16:29 PM
Quote
Originally posted by mrblack
How many Lawyers do we have on the board?
And If so how many In constitutional LAw.
In other words none of us know CHIT!:aok


I know he pled guilty.
Title: This is justice?
Post by: mrblack on November 11, 2003, 03:17:56 PM
Quote
Originally posted by Martlet
I know he pled guilty.


RGR THAT LOL:aok
Title: This is justice?
Post by: slimm50 on November 11, 2003, 03:32:23 PM
Quote
Originally posted by Sandman_SBM
I'm not a lawyer, but ...The lawyers at the ACLU certainly believe there are Constitutional "issues" with this case.


The ACLU?! Oh, for the love of...!!:mad:
Title: This is justice?
Post by: slimm50 on November 11, 2003, 03:41:58 PM
Quote
Originally posted by mrblack
In other words none of us know CHIT!:aok


Not true...I know chit, when I see it, or step in it, ...or READ IT!
Title: This is justice?
Post by: midnight Target on November 11, 2003, 04:20:21 PM
His guilt or innocence is irrelevent. It is not OK for our government to take away our rights without due process.
Title: This is justice?
Post by: GtoRA2 on November 11, 2003, 04:25:08 PM
MT see my thread, he is being held with no due process.

This guy was held as a witness, and was indeed a witness, why is that wrong?
Title: This is justice?
Post by: Mini D on November 11, 2003, 04:38:31 PM
Actually MT... everything they did was legal.  The fact that those around simply realize it is the thing that seems to be irrelevant.

When arresting a group of people, things are handled differently than when arresting an individual.  The evidence is what was presented to a judge that ruled he could be held as a material witness.  The rest is simply sentimental ****.

MiniD
Title: This is justice?
Post by: midnight Target on November 11, 2003, 05:11:42 PM
If he was accorded due process then we are in agreement. My point was towards those crowing about the guilty plea.

Like I said, his guilt is irrelevent "If he wasn't given due process."

And no, I'm not trying to do the Ripsnort shuffle here.
Title: This is justice?
Post by: Batz on November 11, 2003, 05:34:37 PM
If you had read the links provided by Sandman it’s clear he was given "due process". A federal judge ordered he could be held as a "material witness" and for whatever reason the judge then put a gag order on everything and everyone around it. He had a lawyer; his lawyer was "informed".

We can speculate that the government used the "material witness" as a means to get him to talk or they may have actually thought he new something and had that got out it could have compromised an on going investigation. However, you choose to speculate is up to you.

One thing is clear; those involved knew a lot more then the rest of us.

The reason his guilty plea is of interest is because it flies in the face of all those who portrayed this guy as an innocent victim who suffered at the hands of an unjust government.
Title: This is justice?
Post by: Mini D on November 11, 2003, 05:34:53 PM
The only people arguing "due process" were those that had no involvement with the case.  His atourney didn't even bring this up.

I find it funny that the web site linked in the initial thread is still up despite being seriously misleading.  I find it odd that a seach of this subject on the net doesn't turn up a single "oops... our bad" or anything but more baseless exageration.

It's pretty symbolic of everything being posted in the O'Club right now.   Post what we want to believe is true and if it doesn't really pan out... pretend we didn't.

MiniD
Title: This is justice?
Post by: Martlet on November 11, 2003, 07:07:03 PM
Quote
Originally posted by Mini D

I find it funny that the web site linked in the initial thread is still up despite being seriously misleading.  I find it odd that a seach of this subject on the net doesn't turn up a single "oops... our bad" or anything but more baseless exageration.


MiniD


I thought that was funny too, so I went back and looked.  For some reason he linked the .oldindex rather than the original.  If you go to the webpage by url, you get this:  http://www.freemikehawash.org/
Title: This is justice?
Post by: FUNKED1 on November 11, 2003, 07:10:23 PM
That makes a lot more sense.
Title: This is justice?
Post by: midnight Target on November 11, 2003, 07:11:00 PM
A true terrorism fighter:

(from the guilty plea) A. On July 4, 1999, President Clinton issued Executive Order 13129, which prohibited United States persons from, among other things, making any contribution of services to or for the benefit of the Taliban, and from supplying, directly or indirectly, any services to the Taliban or to the territory of Afghanistan controlled by the Taliban. That prohibition was continued in subsequent years and was in effect at all times relevant to the Superseding Indictment. At all times relevant to the Superseding Indictment, defendant HAWASH was a United States citizen and therefore he was a United States person as defined in 31 C.F.R. ? 545.315.
Title: This is justice?
Post by: Tumor on November 11, 2003, 08:54:57 PM
Quote
Originally posted by midnight Target
A true terrorism fighter:

(from the guilty plea) A. On July 4, 1999, President Clinton issued Executive Order 13129, which prohibited United States persons from, among other things, making any contribution of services to or for the benefit of the Taliban, and from supplying, directly or indirectly, any services to the Taliban or to the territory of Afghanistan controlled by the Taliban. That prohibition was continued in subsequent years and was in effect at all times relevant to the Superseding Indictment. At all times relevant to the Superseding Indictment, defendant HAWASH was a United States citizen and therefore he was a United States person as defined in 31 C.F.R. ? 545.315.


Oh sure, never mind the guy who kicked the **** out of them LOL.
Title: This is justice?
Post by: SaburoS on November 12, 2003, 03:01:21 AM
Quote
Originally posted by muckmaw
Sandman.....


Uh.....Saburo....


Care to comment?

Hello?

Is this thing on?

Your little Martyr was going to fight for the Taliban and Al-Quaeda and Kill american soldiers...


Hello?

See, now if I was Sandman or Saburo, I would be a big man about this, wipe the egg off my face and say, "You know what, I was wrong."

Guys?

Your just gonna forget this thread ever happened?

It's easier to run and hide than to face your mistake.

C'mon guys, suck it up.....


So you knew automatically that he was guilty. Sorry, but I stand by my statements in this thread. Funny, I don't see any of you so called "conservatives" answering my last post in this thread.
Run and hide indeed. :rolleyes:
Title: This is justice?
Post by: Mini D on November 12, 2003, 07:58:12 AM
Quote
Originally posted by Martlet
I thought that was funny too, so I went back and looked.  For some reason he linked the .oldindex rather than the original.  If you go to the webpage by url, you get this:  http://www.freemikehawash.org/
Ah... that is a bit odd seeing as how he linked the site on April 4th right after it was created.

I do enjoy the condemnation by the site authors for those who would pass judgement based on Mike's beard.  When, in fact, it was they who decided not to post the picture because it portrayed him in a bad light.

And Saburo...  your scathing comment on those who "knew" he was guilty holds no more weight than your defense of those who "knew" he wasn't receiving due process.  There was substantial evidence.  A judge made the decision based on that evidence.  A guilty plea was issued because of that evidence.

Feel free to look for another case to try and prove whatever point it is you're going after.  Simply throw this one into the "doesn't prove my point" pile and note that you still haven't put anything in the "I was wrong" pile.

MiniD
Title: This is justice?
Post by: Sandman on November 12, 2003, 09:30:00 AM
Quote
Originally posted by Martlet
I thought that was funny too, so I went back and looked.  For some reason he linked the .oldindex rather than the original.  If you go to the webpage by url, you get this:  http://www.freemikehawash.org/



I don't recall what was on the /index.html page when this thread was started in April. A moot point really because the default index has obviously been changed (updated) since then.
Title: This is justice?
Post by: Ripsnort on November 12, 2003, 09:34:03 AM
Quote
Originally posted by Sandman_SBM
I do not recall any 911 terrorists that were U.S. citizens. In fact, the only U.S. terrorist that comes to mind was a white guy named McVeigh.


Only? You seem to forget our friendly neighborhood liberal unibomber. :)
Title: This is justice?
Post by: Sandman on November 12, 2003, 09:36:49 AM
Quote
Originally posted by Ripsnort
Only? You seem to forget our friendly neighborhood liberal unibomber. :)



Nice comeback... I'll get back to you for more wit in about seven months.
Title: This is justice?
Post by: Ripsnort on November 12, 2003, 09:47:07 AM
Quote
Originally posted by Sandman_SBM
Nice comeback... I'll get back to you for more wit in about seven months.


LOL! Didn't see the date, just sifting thru threads before my 2 hour Wednesday meeting (I hate Wednesdays)
Title: This is justice?
Post by: SaburoS on November 13, 2003, 12:47:25 AM
Quote
Originally posted by Mini D
"I was wrong" pile.

MiniD


You won't see it because I'm right in my statements in this thread.
That's how I feel. Period.
Title: This is justice?
Post by: Mini D on November 13, 2003, 07:43:49 AM
I know it's how you feel.  That doesn't make it right.

MiniD
Title: This is justice?
Post by: lazs2 on November 13, 2003, 08:01:24 AM
animal... nazi germany had very strict gun control... I wouldn't want that.   in nazi germany the people thought the government had solutins to all their problems... I wouldn't want that.
lazs
Title: This is justice?
Post by: Stringer on November 13, 2003, 08:11:08 AM
Quote
Originally posted by Ripsnort
LOL! Didn't see the date, just sifting thru threads before my 2 hour Wednesday meeting (I hate Wednesdays)


Thanks Rip!  :aok
Title: This is justice?
Post by: airguard on November 13, 2003, 08:16:36 AM
The land of the free and....... :confused:
Title: This is justice?
Post by: SaburoS on November 13, 2003, 08:40:23 PM
Quote
Originally posted by Mini D
I know it's how you feel.  That doesn't make it right.

MiniD


Then point out my posts in this thread that make my position wrong.
Do you even know what my position is on this matter?
I doubt it.
Title: This is justice?
Post by: Martlet on November 13, 2003, 08:41:03 PM
Quote
Originally posted by SaburoS
Then point out my posts in this thread that make my position wrong.
Do you even know what my position is on this matter?
I doubt it.


I do.