[Chris Rhines]

...since March 20. 20 days, with no charges filed. The warrants and subpeona have all been sealed at the request of the government.

Not sure if this has been posted yet, but it deserves a look anyway.

http://www.freemikehawash.org/oldindex.html

Is this acceptable for a society that claims to be free?

- Chris

[bountyhunter]

It's kind of funny that the sheeple will snooze as members of the government sieze power they were never granted and then suddenly wake up when it hits close to home. In case you haven't noticed, His Royal majesty GWB has declared that the war on terrorism requires he take special measures (powers) to ensure "our" safety. One is the suspension of constitutional rights of people who are of suspicious origin, the other minor power he grabbed is the right to wage war on anybody he thinks might be a threat. It's kind of late now to wake up and ask what happened to the rights we used to have.... and, if you think he's done, just hold on to your hats.

[MPFreeman]

:barf: :what: :scrutiny: :uhoh: :confused: :eek:

Where is the tinfoil smiley?

[seeker_two]

Anyone heard from Jose Padilla lately?...:scrutiny:

While I am for "by any means" for non-citizens (esp. those in the country illegally), the Constitution & our laws spell out how US citizens are to be treated. If we don't treat our own citizens well, then we fall on the slippery slope that got Saddam in trouble.

Anyone?...:confused:

[DRC]

Always the optomist :)

While this does seem to be a tragic story on the surface I would tend toward the idea that there is more to this than the story tells. Maybe there's not but the written story is onesided since law enforcement have sealed the documents on the case. It's too out of the ordinary at a time when out of the ordinary is a dangerous game to be playing for them to be doing this "just because they can" but then I'm not discrediting the story either. Like I said only one side of the story is represented so there's not much to base a full judgement on.

My thoughts not yours.

Take care,

DRC

[Justin]

Anyone heard from Jose Padilla lately?... Or that guy they're holding in St. Louis and won't even let on the witness stand without a big fat dose of thorazine? (Any links to info pertaining that case would be appreciated...)
I'd like to think that the United States is a free country, but within the last ten years or so, it only seems that you're free so long as you don't fit some sort of profile drawn up by whoever happens to be in charge.:(

While this does seem to be a tragic story on the surface I would tend toward the idea that there is more to this than the story tells. Last time I checked, it's illegal to arrest someone without charging them with a crime.
The tragedy is that more people aren't troubled by this.

[Chris Rhines]

DRC, you're very trusting.

Me, I'm not. I see myself in Mike Hawash's shoes someday.

- Chris

[Marko Kloos]

Relax, Chris! They won't arrest and detain you without filing charges unless you're a terrorist. We circumvent the Constitution only in case of terrorism...

The problem with that is the definition of "terrorism", of course. According to current precedent, a terrorist is anyone the government accuses of being a terrorist. The next Democrat administration may consider you a terrorist if you have an AR-15 with a 30-round magazine, and thanks to the USA PATRIOT act they'd be on solid legal ground if they chose to arrest "assault rifle" owners and detain them without filing charges. Domestic terrorists, ya know?

[JohnBT]

Material witness...no arrest.

Enacted 1984...18 USC § 3144

Might not be good, but it's not new either.

John

[rock jock]

Is this acceptable for a society that claims to be free?
Yes it is in extreme cases, most notably when the very survival of the Republic is at stake. That used to be a scenario you could scoff at and snidely dismiss, but no longer. Its a new ballgame, folks and some of the rules have changed. It has been said before that the Constitution, while sacrosanct in our system of justice, is nonetheless not a suicide pact. Whether Mr. Hawash's case rises to that level, I don't know. But based on the website you reference, neither do you.

I might pose a question: Is there any conceivable circumstance, no matter how remote, under which this would be acceptable? How about a naturalized citizen from one of our Arab friend-states that has strong financial and social ties to terrorists, that has been fingered independently by several suspects in custody as being the mastermind behind an imminent major WMD attack on the U.S. Let's say this individual is very intelligent and meticulous and has covered his tracks so that there is no readily available evidence aganist him, but the feds strongly suspect that if he is free he will be able to direct this suspected attack, even under close surveillance. Is is OK to pick him up and hold him for a few weeks until a link can be established, or the many claims aganist him proven groundless?

[Marko Kloos]

Yes it is in extreme cases, most notably when the very survival of the Republic is at stake.

The problem here is twofold:

First, the Constitution does not make exceptions for "extreme cases".

Second, any violation of the Constitution tolerated on the basis of the "very survival of the Republic" will automatically encourage further violations. Whoever wishes to circumvent the BoR in the future merely has to claim that "the very survival of the Republic is at stake". If the litmus test here is majority agreement, i.e. enough folks agreeing that this is the case, then you can do precisely what the Bill of Rights is designed to prevent: abrogation of essential rights via majority vote.

The very survival of the Republic is in danger precisely because some people want to suspend the Bill of Rights, not because some misguided fanatics want to blow up a few buildings. If the Bill of Rights goes, the Republic goes, because the BoR is the only thing that separates us from the "snout-counting" mobocracies of Europe.

[Chris Rhines]

I might pose a question: Pose away, but you really already know what the answer is going to be, don't you?

Is there any conceivable circumstance, no matter how remote, under which this would be acceptable? No. Nein. Nyet. Not ever, under and circumstances, no matter how dire. A state that has to depend on such measures to survive, doesn't deserve to.

- Chris

[Marko Kloos]

Like one of the characters in L.Neil Smith's The Probability Broach says: "I'd rather have my principles shot out from underneath me, than put a bullet in them myself."

[rock jock]

Second, any violation of the Constitution tolerated on the basis of the "very survival of the Republic" will automatically encourage further violations.
Potentially, yes. That is why we as a nation must exercise something known as "good judgement". There is no black and white on this issue.

No. Nein. Nyet. Not ever, under and circumstances, no matter how dire. A state that has to depend on such measures to survive, doesn't deserve to.
I am glad my freedoms and survival don't depdend on you, sir. You would see our country vanish to accomodate a terrorist.

[Ian]

Yes it is in extreme cases, most notably when the very survival of the Republic is at stake. That used to be a scenario you could scoff at and snidely dismiss, but no longer. Its a new ballgame, folks and some of the rules have changed.

Darn hootin' straight!! You only overlooked one subtle point...the Republic is not in grave danger because of terrorists (or IBM employees with Arab names), it's in grave danger because of the destruction of the freedom it is founded upon.

[Ian]

FWIW, here's the Seattle Times story on this latest victim of domestic terrorism (at the hands of the judicial system)...

http://archives.seattletimes.nwsource.com/cgi-bin/texis.cgi/web/vortex/display?slug=detained08m&date=20030408

[Marko Kloos]

Potentially, yes. That is why we as a nation must exercise something known as "good judgement". There is no black and white on this issue.

"We as a nation". Snout-counting, majority decision as to when it's OK to ignore the Bill of Rights. Like I said, that was precisely what the BoR was supposed to prevent.

This country almost elected Al Gore into the White House. What if we have a Democrat administration in 4 years? What if "we as a nation" decide that gun ownership must be outlawed in the interest of the safety of the nation? Are you then going to protest and invoke the Bill of Rights, when you already set the precedent that "there's no black and white", and the majority can ignore the BoR by exercising "good judgment"?

There is a black and white when it comes to the Bill of Rights, and I'll be damned if I'll ever quietly stand by and let my fellow countrymen trample the Bill of Rights because they've been sufficiently scared by those who see the Constitution as a hindrance to the proper ruling of the country.

I am glad my freedoms and survival don't depdend on you, sir. You would see our country vanish to accomodate a terrorist.

You don't need a terrorist to endanger your freedoms...you're already willingly forfeiting them in exchange for the promise of safety.

[DRC]

Hello Chris,

"DRC, you're very trusting.

Me, I'm not. I see myself in Mike Hawash's shoes someday.

- Chris"

I'm not "very trusting" but when I don't know the WHOLE story regarding the case and neither do you, but I cannot bring myself to say this person is being held without reason. Wait for the WHOLE story then decide if you have something to worry about. All you have presently is a story and non-access to the file.

Basically speaking you have "squat" to base your fears on. So the moral of this story is that I'm not "very trusting" I'm just not papranoid :)

Take care and remember just because you're not paranoid doesn't mean they're not out to get you. :)

DRC

[Chris Rhines]

DRC -

Hey, if you're comfortable trusting the gov't, more power to you. But trust is all it comes down to.

- Chris

[4v50 Gary]

Worse President when it came to Civil Rights was Honest Abe. He suspended habeus corpus and the Supremes told him he was naughty. He ignored the Supremes. Thousands were locked up and one "copperhead" Senator was seized by Gen. Burnsides and shipped to the Confederacy (who didn't want him either). While things returned to normal after the war, who's to say we'll ever be "normal" again? Like Lendsringer says, next gubmint comes along and your 30 round magazine or 15 round "clip" is a terrorist weapon of mass destruction. I shudder at the thought.

[Vladimir Berkov]

lendringser, you said it better than I even could have myself...

[DeltaElite]

I don't like the concept of incarcerating witnesses, I don't like it at all.
Either charge them with a crime or let them go.

[rock jock]

There is a black and white when it comes to the Bill of Rights
Really? So we are all entitled to owning nuclear weapons as individuals, right? I mean, they are arms and the SA says we should be able to keep arms. So this must mean you are in favor of letting everyone who is financially able to, to own nukes. Not just own them, but carry them whereever they feel like, let's say D.C., onto the steps of Congress, along Pennsylvania Ave., at the Suprerem Court building. Furthermore, since the USSC has declared that the BoR extends to non-citizens, we should let anyone who crosses our border, illegally or not, have them too, right? The BoR, afterall, are universal rights and restricting them in any way whatsoever would be tantamount to establishing a Nazi-esque regime, right?

You don't need a terrorist to endanger your freedoms...you're already willingly forfeiting them in exchange for the promise of safety.
By your own definition, your rights are being trampled on every day in every conceivable fashion and yet you sit quietly by and let it happen. No? Have you taken up arms aganist your govt. for their continued list of BoR violations against you? If not, you have accepted them, gladly or otherwise.

BTW, lens, you oppose our current war with Iraq, right? I mean, we had no concrete evidence of Saddam hiding WMD, just strong evidence in that regard. We as a nation confronted him and he refused to be intimidated. We took action against Saddam without a single shred of irrefutable evidence in direct violation of his universal right to defend himself in court. In fact, when the high court (i.e., the UN) issued a search warrant (in the form of UN inspectors), we didnt even give them a chance to finish their job. We brazenly disregarded the court and the BoR and busted down his door with the largest entry team in history. And not just to arrest him, no, we went in with the express intention of killing him. So, just to clarify, you are in opposition to this war, correct?

[rock jock]

Hey, if you're comfortable trusting the gov't, more power to you. But trust is all it comes down to.
My response: insert the word "terrorist" for "govt".

[Marko Kloos]

Really? So we are all entitled to owning nuclear weapons as individuals, right? I mean, they are arms and the SA says we should be able to keep arms. So this must mean you are in favor of letting everyone who is financially able to, to own nukes.

Reductio ad absurdum. Nukes are weapons of mass destruction, not personal arms, and they are wholly unsuited for legitimate personal defense. Employing a nuke would infringe on the rights of everyone within detonation range. Your rights end where someone else's rights begin, and that reason alone takes nukes out of the equation. That does not mean I recognize the right of the government to restrict their ownership, I merely dispute the right of anyone to employ a nuke indiscriminately.

The BoR, afterall, are universal rights and restricting them in any way whatsoever would be tantamount to establishing a Nazi-esque regime, right?

Infringing on the Bill of Rights may not necessarily create a Nazi-esque regime, but it would be unconstititional nonetheless, in every case. The Bill of Rights makes this Republic what it is, and you cannot preserve the Republic by eroding the Bill of Rights...even if you're well-meaning. I think that the gun-banners are genuinely well-meaning, but good intentions are not an excuse to infringe on the Bill of Rights. Call me an idealist, but aren't we always complaining about the Leftists and their "living document" interpretation of the Constitution, or their lack of "moral absolutes"?

By your own definition, your rights are being trampled on every day in every conceivable fashion and yet you sit quietly by and let it happen. No? Have you taken up arms aganist your govt. for their continued list of BoR violations against you? If not, you have accepted them, gladly or otherwise.

I pick and choose my battles. So far, the infringements on my personal rights have not warranted a Spartan-like stand yet, but I know where the limits of my tolerance lie. I work within the system where I can, and I fight every new infringement within those constraints whenever I can. Most of all, I live in a manner consistent with my philosophy, the Non-Aggression Principle. I do not believe in initiating violence, for whatever reason. Violence is only ever moral in direct retaliation and in response to someone else's initiation of violence.

So, just to clarify, you are in opposition to this war, correct?

Not exactly. Saddam initiated violence by invading Kuwait, and he didn't abide by the terms of the cease-fire. This war is not so much Gulf War II as a conclusion to Gulf War I. His real or imagined threat to the US has nothing to do with it, and pretending that it was the primary reason for this war is a bit naive. But since Saddam disobeyed the conditions of the cease-fire of 1991, our military intervention is not unjustified.

[Chris Rhines]

So we are all entitled to owning nuclear weapons as individuals, right? I mean, they are arms and the SA says we should be able to keep arms. So this must mean you are in favor of letting everyone who is financially able to, to own nukes. Not just own them, but carry them whereever they feel like, let's say D.C., onto the steps of Congress, along Pennsylvania Ave., at the Suprerem Court building. Now you're getting into the spirit!! :D

Furthermore, since the USSC has declared that the BoR extends to non-citizens, we should let anyone who crosses our border, illegally or not, have them too, right? Did the Supreme Court really declare that? Case and number? But anyhow, as I think that the reights codified in BoR should extend to every living human being, I'd be okay with non-citizens having nukes.

By your own definition, your rights are being trampled on every day in every conceivable fashion and yet you sit quietly by and let it happen. No? Have you taken up arms aganist your govt. for their continued list of BoR violations against you? If not, you have accepted them, gladly or otherwise. This has got to be the silliest argument I have ever read. The fact that I don't see fit to go out in a Tim McVeigh-style blaze of infamy has no bearing whatsoever on whether what the Government does is right or wrong. Unless, of course, you are a believer in the old Might Makes Right axiom.

BTW, lens, you oppose our current war with Iraq, right? I mean, we had no concrete evidence of Saddam hiding WMD, just strong evidence in that regard. We as a nation confronted him and he refused to be intimidated. We took action against Saddam without a single shred of irrefutable evidence in direct violation of his universal right to defend himself in court. In fact, when the high court (i.e., the UN) issued a search warrant (in the form of UN inspectors), we didnt even give them a chance to finish their job. We brazenly disregarded the court and the BoR and busted down his door with the largest entry team in history. And not just to arrest him, no, we went in with the express intention of killing him. So, just to clarify, you are in opposition to this war, correct? I don't know about Lendringser, but I am opposed to the invasion of Iraq, for roughly the reasons that you describe (and a few others.) Good analogy, though. ;)

- Chris

[rock jock]

Your rights end where someone else's rights begin
Exactly. And that is why I support, in limited cases and only when there is the threat of imminent danger on a mass scale and strict guidelines employed, the detention of terrorist suspects without attached charges. Why? Because the potential is so overwhelmingly great that their own freedom could directly lead to the violation of my first and primary right, the right to life. I refuse to voluntarily forfeit my basic rights to ensure that a terrorist suspect can continue his work unhindered.

Nukes are weapons of mass destruction, not personal arms, and they are wholly unsuited for legitimate personal defense.
Some on this board have made the case, quite convincingly, that the 2A extends beyond just "personal arms". I don't agree with them, but it serves to illustrate the point that even the BoR is subject to some limited and narrow interpretation, i.e., it is not always black and white.

Saddam initiated violence by invading Kuwait, and he didn't abide by the terms of the cease-fire. This war is not so much Gulf War II as a conclusion to Gulf War I. His real or imagined threat to the US has nothing to do with it, and pretending that it was the primary reason for this war is a bit naive.
I don't buy that for a minute. We wouldn't be in Kuwait right now absent evidence that he continued to produce and stockpile WMD. It is the case that the President has made domestically and internationally. Ceasefire resolutions were a ruse to get us in there, but make no mistake - if didn't have that card to play, we would have still rolled in with guns blazing. We ignored international law and due process by going in when we did. But, you know what, I still support it. Why? Because it is the right thing to do and our survival may hinge on the outcome.

[DRC]

You're just so tense man. You need to take a deep breath in, then out. It's easy watch (sound of slow even breathing with a calming sort of Zen sound to it) There you go. Now doesn't that feel better? I thought it would. Maybe some milk and cookies would do you good too :)

Actually I never said that I trusted the governement. What I said was (and correct me if I'm wrong) I don't have all the story and neither do you...and then I defined it as paranoia on your part just as a funny because I'm just that kind of guy :)

Anyway, when you have the whole story and if it pans out the way it's being alleged I'll be happy to say "Those swine in the Governement need to be publically flogged for doing such a lawless thing! Hurumph! Hurumph! Rabble! Rabble! CAN I GET AN AMEN! CAN YOU DIG ITTTTT!! FO-SHIZZLE, WHIZZLE!!!" or something like that anyway, maybe not those exact words but it'll be close to that I can assure you. Because doggonnit we just can't have this kind of allegedly lawless, non-availablity of the whole story, reasoned type of stance for something we don't know enough about, now can we? :)

Anyway, enjoy the paranoia. I hear its nice this time of year :)

DR "and a capital" C

[CZ-75]

Saddam was pretty much in favor of holding folks w/o charges as well.

I could see giving the govt. up to a year to bring charges (of course, they should pay the innocent for their time in jail, should no charges be brought - good luck with that.), in so-called "national security emergencies," but charges should be brought. Something would be really wrong if they couldn't find evidence in a year's time, like having no case to begin with.

:barf:

[English John]

Who decides when it is important enough to deviate from the Constitution, or more importantly the BoR?

Who said "All power corrupts, absolute power corrupts absolutely"?

The Constitution says what our strong central government CAN do. The BoR (and the C never would have been ratified without it) says what they CAN"T do. Are we going to follow the rules, or not?

People whom are arrested should appear in front of a judge ASAP, the BoR says we should be able to face our accusers in court. If it's all right to abuse "THOSE kinds of people", who sets the definitions?

Isn't one purpose of the 2nd A. to protect us from our own government gone astray?

Weren't the 4th and 5th A to protect us from gov't lobsterbacks that threw people into jail because they wanted to, for the good of the gov't (or the King)?

I KNOW! Let ME decide when it's OK to break the rules. I'll do a good job. Trust me!

[pax]

Anyway, when you have the whole story and if it pans out the way it's being alleged I'll be happy to say "Those swine in the Governement need to be publically flogged for doing such a lawless thing!

Right.

DRC, let me quote to you from the 6th Amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America. It's an interesting little document, little read and rarely heeded. But theoretically it is the highest law of our fair land.
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 defence.
Okay, my point is that if "I don't know and neither do you" what this guy did (or might have done), and there is no way to obtain the information, then the authorities are already in violation of the highest law of the land. See that bit about a "speedy and public trial"? That means, other people gotta know about it.

Pretty simple, really. It's a little disingenuous to claim that you don't have enough information to tell whether this is a Bad Thing, when the lack of information is, in itself, part of what makes this a Bad Thing.

The whole thing smells like skunk cabbage in the spring, only worse.

pax

The strength of the Constitution lies entirely in the determination of each citizen to defend it. Only if every single citizen feels duty bound to do his share in this defense are the constitutional rights secure. -- Albert Einstein

[Zander]

There is a black and white when it comes to the Bill of Rights, and I'll be damned if I'll ever quietly stand by and let my fellow countrymen trample the Bill of Rights because they've been sufficiently scared by those who see the Constitution as a hindrance to the proper ruling of the country.And your solution is what, precisely? Please be specific...

[Zander]

Okay, my point is that if "I don't know and neither do you" what this guy did (or might have done), and there is no way to obtain the information, then the authorities are already in violation of the highest law of the land. See that bit about a "speedy and public trial"? That means, other people gotta know about it.This presumes that he has been actually arrested, charged, arraigned and awaits trial.

Wouldn't you agree?

There's a bigger issue here, and you and others seem more than willing to ignore it. Has this American citizen been singled out at random? Is there any evidence that he acted to aid those who would kill his fellow American citizens? If so, do you think that you are entitled to the full details?

Are we to assume that the investigation of any target is inherently suspect because our distrust of our intelligence efforts is paramount?

Where do we draw the line?

Do we allow the activities of any American citizen to continue unfettered because one out of X-number of suspects [one in a hundred, thousand, ten-thousand, hundred-thousand, million] isn't balanced by a rational conclusion that a threat exists. In a nation of 280 million residents, a million ne'er-do-wells represent a paltry four-tenths of one percent.

I've got it...let's disband the "Stalinist" clones and trust that we have no interior or exterior threat. Let's revert to a plain-vanilla interpretation that decrees that an American citizen is immune to question of his motives, no matter what the intelligence suggests.

We'll suffer for it, but we'll have a completely clear conscience. We'll be bolstered by our victory over the inherently corrupt agencies that have no other agenda than to continue the abrogation and dissolution of our inherent Rights as American citizens.

Let's shut down the FBI, all the state analogs, all the military analogs...let's presume that the sheer will of our interpretation of the United States Constitution will protect us from all enemies, foreign and domestic.

Let's take such matters into our own hands and vet all the green-card residents, temporary aliens, illegal aliens and any other population category we find suspicious. What the heck, we can do a more thorough job of checking these folks and applying the appropriate remedy, can't we?

Where do I volunteer?

[Tommy Gunn]

I got into a fist fight with a muslim. He did not like my conversation with another fellow about the war and just came right at me. The words coming out of his mouth were that Arabs were being killed over there. I told him to go back where he came from, then he shot back that he was an American.

Well, you know this guy may have citizenship. But he was not, nor never will be an American. Not when he is angry at Americans for killing "his people". (why is he even here?)

I fear that our government, like other Western governments, has been passing out citizenship like it was halloween candy. Our enemies are here among us and I think the war on terror is going to become the terrorist war on US.

[CZ-75]

Did you win?

If you did, you should've made a point that his actions were a metaphor for his "people" (whatever that means), who use violence as a first resort to settle disagreements, then wind up with their a-- in a sling after picking on the wrong guys. Perhaps you should also have asked if he was planning on beating up your wife, kids, parents, etc. since he, like his "people," couldn't win against someone who can defend himself.

[pax]

This presumes that he has been actually arrested, charged, arraigned and awaits trial.

Wouldn't you agree?
Zander.

Uh, yeah.

The guy has been in jail for nearly a month. That's "arrested" no matter what slippery term they are using to evade the truth.

If he's not awaiting trial, he sure as shooting should be. Remember that bit about "speedy" trial? He's locked up. Can't go to work. Can't play with his young daughter. Can't make love to his wife or surf the internet or go to the beach. He's locked up with no end in sight and no assurance that they will ever let him out. He hasn't been charged with any crime and has no trial date set.

Does this bother you? It bothers me. They could do this to you, tomorrow, and you would have no recourse other than to hope that the folks who are disregarding the law of the land in this guy's case will choose to obey it in yours.
Where do we draw the line?
Where do we draw the line? I'll tell you. We draw the line at the Constitution of the United States. You know, the highest law of the land, our charter of existence, the thing that defines who we are and what we will accept as a nation.

When the Constitution is being ignored, trampled on, and disregarded ...

When people who call themselves "American" don't give a rat's hind end about the charter of America's existence, just so long as they feel as if someone is Doing Something about the threat du jour ...

When folks who have sworn to preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution pretend they don't know a thing about it and don't care what it says ...

That is where we draw the line.

pax

If the personal freedoms guaranteed by the Constitution inhibit the government's ability to govern the people, we should look to limit those guarantees. -- President William Clinton

[Justin Moore]

Yes it is in extreme cases, most notably when the very survival of the Republic is at stake

Wow, what a quaint idea! We have to destroy the Republic to SAVE the Republic. I wish I coulda thunka that ;)

Doublethink. Orwell would be proud :rolleyes:

[DRC]

"DRC, let me quote to you from the 6th Amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America. It's an interesting little document, little read and rarely heeded. But theoretically it is the highest law of our fair land.

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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 defence.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

pax let me quote to you from the book of reality if I may. It's neither a document nor rarely applied. :)

While I agree with the you, and yes I've read much of the Constitution and have refered back to it on many occasions over the last four years, and agree this is not how these things should be handled it's not the way much in law has been handled for some time. The Constitution has been deemed a "Living Document" which I'm sure you know what that means but in the event you do not, it means that it's "always growing and being redefined." Just so that you know where I'm coming from, I believe the Constitution IS the law and should not be changed to suit ones needs (the law makers sure found out a way to make good use of the "Elastic Clause" didn't they ;) The writers of the Constitution set up our governement to be less restrictive on the rights of the people and set it up to be "small" handling only specific tasks, but we can all see where that's lead us over the years with this monstrocity we call "Governement".

"Okay, my point is that if "I don't know and neither do you" what this guy did (or might have done), and there is no way to obtain the information, then the authorities are already in violation of the highest law of the land. See that bit about a "speedy and public trial"? That means, other people gotta know about it."

Hmmm. Small problem with this part and I have to reiterate my point to make it understood. "I don't know and neither do you" as to the reasons for this man being held. Public necessity by law? Again I don't what he's done or been involved in. What if he's not so much being held for breaking any laws but is being held for his own protection? I know that's a bit far fetch perhaps but it is just as plausible as any of the arguements being brought up thus far because "we just don't know" regarding circumstances, conditions, information the authorities may and or may not have on this guy or perhaps on someone else he's envolved with. To clarify something else as well; "speedy and public trial"??? Good luck. Because of so many other abuses on our legal system this has become an impossibility due to many different circumstances not the least of which being Tort suits. But again I'm not advocating giving up ones rights for protection purposes. What I am proposing is that others wait to find out what the deal is and then decide; there may be more to this than meets the proverbial eye.

"Pretty simple, really. It's a little disingenuous to claim that you don't have enough information to tell whether this is a Bad Thing, when the lack of information is, in itself, part of what makes this a Bad Thing."

Even simpler, is that it's pretty presumptuous of you to think and espouse that I don't think this is a "Bad Thing". What I think is that I have no idea what kind of a "Thing" this is so cannot, in good conscience, say there is no reason for it being done since I don't have enough information to base that assertion on than I would on the other. Perhaps he's involved in some things that are yet under "Classified" or "priviledged information" demarcations. But we just don't know do we?

"The whole thing smells like skunk cabbage in the spring, only worse."

Actually skunk cabbage typically blooms in spring and doesn't start to stink until the heat of the summer gets to it for a while ;)

"pax"

Thanks for conversation. I'll finish with this; If this man is innocent and has done nothing to deserve this then I don't like it and reparations should be made to the victim. If the man is a flight risk and has information, regarding some wrong doing, mounting while being held then I think he is where he needs to be until such time comes that this information can be released. Rights are rights and breaking them should have stiff consequences but how many that violate our rights are ever held accountable?

Take care and don't be a stranger.

DRC

PS. This whole case is a bit too public for them to still be keeping this man held if they have no reason behind it!

[Tommy Gunn]

Did you win?

No :fire:

[pax]

While I agree with the you, and yes I've read much of the Constitution and have refered back to it on many occasions over the last four years, and agree this is not how these things should be handled it's not the way much in law has been handled for some time. Constitution has been deemed a "Living Document" which I'm sure you know what that means but in the event you do not, it means that it's "always growing and being redefined." Just so that you know where I'm coming from, I believe the Constitution IS the law and should not be changed to suit ones needs ...
DRC,

It's probably hopeless to discuss this any further. Despite your disclaimer, it sounds to me as if you believe that because the gov't has ignored the law of the land up until now, the law simply doesn't matter any more. That's the reality, after all. So why bother complaining about it?

I don't have anything constructive to say to logic like that, but see the sig on my initial post.

pax

If the Constitution is to be construed to mean what the majority at any given period in history wish the Constitution to mean, why a written Constitution? -- Frank J. Hogan, President, American Bar Assn. (1939)

PS -- re skunk cabbages. The ones across the street from my house on the trail down to the river stink pretty bad from the moment they bloom in early spring until they rot later in the year. Despite their alleged edibility, I hear the native people would only eat them in times of starvation. Me, I'd rather starve.

[DRC]

"DRC,

It's probably hopeless to discuss this any further. Despite your disclaimer, it sounds to me as if you believe that because the gov't has ignored the law of the land up until now, the law simply doesn't matter any more. That's the reality, after all. So why bother complaining about it?"

Quite the contrary, law has ignored the law of the land for some time and still is so complain all you want about it, I do. But we're talking about a specific case hear in which you, I any almost everyone else is completely in the dark about so the question isn't "why bother complaining about it?" but rather what are you complaining about? Complain all you want about a mans rights being violated but don't pretend that you know something about the case when, by virtue of the articles written as well as yours and many others own admission, you have no clue nor do I. My stance is that I have no clue as to why this is being done but I would hope for their sake they have a good reason. Your stance seems to be that they're wrong and need to be forth coming (and yet you have no clue either) Who knows, they could be completely in the wrong and violating this mans rights for no reason and I would be complaining right along with you if its found that there was no reason for this scenario, but at present I'll let the powers that be decide sense they have more info than I do. I'll wait to see how it plays out sense all I've read regarding the case says that information should be released in a month.

"I don't have anything constructive to say to logic like that, but see the sig on my initial post.

pax"

What is going on at presence isn't governance of the people. It's called intelligence gathering and investigation. What Slick Willy wanted to do was control every aspect of all Americans lives and turn it all over to the governement to decide on. I agree with your signature line but it has no relevance in this case.

"If the Constitution is to be construed to mean what the majority at any given period in history wish the Constitution to mean, why a written Constitution? -- Frank J. Hogan, President, American Bar Assn. (1939)"

I agree with this as well; which is the reason I put "Living Document" in quotes. Those are not my words but are the words being used in law to realign constitutional law with ones personal legal "needs." And that is wrong. I think more than anythying you've misunderstood what I was saying. Trample on my rights as a law abiding citizen? No, unless I'm up to no good then I no longer have rights under the Constitution. Rewrite the Constitution as governement sees fit? No and the practice should be quelled with public hanging for those attempting to do so. Make Governement bigger? No. It's entirely too big as it is now and needs to be shrunken considerably.

"PS -- re skunk cabbages. The ones across the street from my house on the trail down to the river stink pretty bad from the moment they bloom in early spring until they rot later in the year. Despite their alleged edibility, I hear the native people would only eat them in times of starvation. Me, I'd rather starve."

Must be the climate then. Those I've been around really have little or no smell until the suns been hitting them with some pretty fierce heat and they exude the oils in the leaves. Me too as to preferring starvation over eating one. Chickweed is nasty as well. "Tastes like **** but you can live on it." :)

Have a good one,

DRC

[pax]

DRC,

Thanks for the thoughtful reply. :)
What Slick Willy wanted to do was control every aspect of all Americans lives and turn it all over to the governement to decide on. I agree with your signature line but it has no relevance in this case.
No, not that one -- the one before it: The strength of the Constitution lies entirely in the determination of each citizen to defend it. Only if every single citizen feels duty bound to do his share in this defense are the constitutional rights secure. -- Albert Einstein
My point was we can't just throw up our hands and say, "welcome to reality." At least, not if we don't want reality to keep getting worse.
Quite the contrary, law has ignored the law of the land for some time and still is so complain all you want about it, I do. But we're talking about a specific case hear in which you, I any almost everyone else is completely in the dark about so the question isn't "why bother complaining about it?" but rather what are you complaining about?
I am complaining about locking a man up for nearly a month, without "arresting" him, without charging him with a crime, without allowing anyone else in the country to know what he has done to merit being locked up, and without setting a date for a trial.

I think this goes against the spirit if not the actual letter of the Constitution of the United States -- which is supposed to be the highest law of the land. "Speedy and public" is the Constitutional standard, and that standard is not being met.

That is what I'm complaining about.

You want to say, "Well, we don't know anything about it, so we shouldn't be complaining yet. Wait till we hear... Maybe he's guilty ... Maybe there's a good reason ..."

The fact that we haven't heard means that something rotten is being done. That rottenness isn't in Hawash getting a bum rap (maybe he is, maybe he isn't). Nope. The rottenness is in the complete and utter disregard for the Constitutional protections that are every citizen's right.

Maybe the guy deserves to be locked away for life. Maybe he's the worst mass-murderer in history and that's why he's been thrown in jail. Or maybe he's a saint and is being railroaded. I don't know him and I honestly don't care either way.

What I do care about is the Constitutional protections that are being short-circuited here.

My point is that it doesn't matter what the guy has done, whether he is guilty or innocent or is being locked up (in jail -- that is not voluntary, folks!) "for his own protection."

It doesn't matter why the guarantees given us in the Constitution are being trampled, used as toilet paper by our elected and appointed officials. It doesn't matter what reasons they would give for doing this foul deed. What matters is that they are doing so.

There's a system in place to determine whether or not the man is guilty. It is hedged about with all sorts of safeguards so that human rights won't be trampled.

Someone just pulled all the safeguards off the buzzsaw and is waving it around.

That is what I am complaining about.

pax

You have to care about the 'fair trial' part; you have to care about the 'due process of law' part, and you have to care about these things more than you care about putting child molestors away. -- Graydon Saunders

[Al Norris]

It was brought up earlier, that this was legal pursuant to a 1984 law. Here's the law:

Sec. 3144. - Release or detention of a material witness

If it appears from an affidavit filed by a party that the testimony of a person is material in a criminal proceeding, and if it is shown that it may become impracticable to secure the presence of the person by subpoena, a judicial officer may order the arrest of the person and treat the person in accordance with the provisions of section 3142 of this title. No material witness may be detained because of inability to comply with any condition of release if the testimony of such witness can adequately be secured by deposition, and if further detention is not necessary to prevent a failure of justice. Release of a material witness may be delayed for a reasonable period of time until the deposition of the witness can be taken pursuant to the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure.

Several salient points here.

A Warrant for Arrest as a material witness must be issued.

Section 3142, while long and somewhat convoluted, and which deals with a defendent, has one major issue. The defendent must be brought before a judge in a reasonable amount of time (24hrs is the standard, excluding weekends) for arraignment. This is the time when charges are made.

In the case of a witness, he must be brought before a judge who will hold a hearing to determine whether or if the witness should continue detention. Prosecution must present evidence that the witness's release or a simple deposition would cause a failure of justice.

The problem here is that the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure were changed by the USA PATRIOT Act. A "witness" may now be detained indefinitely on the word of the prosecution and a claim to national security.

The Act also changed the manner in which such warrents were issued and by whom.

I stand with Pax and several others. It matters not what the witness knows or doesn't know; whether the witness is actually a defendent or not. Secret tribunals and warrents and whatnot are repugnant to the very Constitution which we are all claiming is the highest law of the land, regardless of national security or not. Congress has not declared a suspension of the writ of habeas corpus, but passed a law that in effect gives the executive a power that it does not have. Congress can not enact away it's own power.

The fact that we are even having this arguement is telling.

[Don Gwinn]

If you allow exceptions in "extreme" cases, every case will become extreme. If you allow exceptions only when "the survival of the Republic is at stake" then they'll declare that the survival of the Republic is at stake every single time they want the exception. If that became the language used to justify these measures, then in ten years there would be Assistant District Attorneys in courtrooms arguing with straight faces that "the scourge of illegal drugs threatens the survival of the Republic and it was therefore necessary to keep this small-time dealer locked up for three months with no hearings."

Don't believe me? Define "interstate commerce." Then check the USSCs definition. Theirs has no relation to reality whatsoever. Why? Because a long time ago people looking for a way to justify federal powers much broader and more imposing than the ones actually set forth in the Constitution realized that they could get them by simply claiming "interstate commerce" every time they wanted to do something. They created standards by which every event in your life can be tied to interstate commerce, and voila! A whole new set of federal powers.

[dustind]

Amen Pax, I too cant believe people allow the goverment to violate the constitution so blatently.

Amendment V

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger...

..., nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law


Amendment VI

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.

[dustind]

As for sodom/irac comparison towords the top of this thread, a perfect example. He broke many laws, we have/had proof, we had probably cause for others. He/they commited crimes against humanity, plenty of probably cause for WMD, he/they blantently violated UN laws and mandates. They were given a fair trial, etc etc, everyone should be so lucky. If we capture him alive we will give him a FAIR, PUBLIC trial, with a DEFENCE, we will CHARGE HIM WITH CRIMES. We need to do this all the time in the USA, each and every time, no exceptions, ever, EVER! The constitution is not negotiable.

[mercedesrules]

Is this acceptable for a society that claims to be free?
Absolutely not! :mad:

MR

[Zander]

The guy has been in jail for nearly a month. That's "arrested" no matter what slippery term they are using to evade the truth.-- paxGood thing you put that in quotes.

There's a simple solution, however. Let's get him released. What information do we need and how do we proceed?

How 'bout if you take charge? You research this "arrest" and tell us where to make our contributions to secure his release. I'll put my money on the line right now. Make the case and I'll send a MO for my contribution wherever you say.

I'm just gonna guess that your concern has limits...it's easy to plead abrogation of the Constitution...so please prove me wrong. It shouldn't be hard for you to access his bank records, history of contacts [including cell-phone records and videotape of his "drops"], correspondence, and those "inconsequential" additional details that seem to have flagged his collusion with the sort of folks who would like to kill you and me for the "greater glory" of their cause.

After we secure the release of Hawash, we can move on to Padilla.

Deal?

[pax]

Ah, Zander, I'm glad you asked.

You can make donations by mailing a check to:

Hawash Legal Defense Fund or
Hawash Family Support Fund
PMB# 317
2459 SE TV Highway
Hillsboro, OR 97123

Or Any Bank of America Branch
Free Mike Hawash
c/o S. McGeady
2229 NE Thompson St.
Portland, OR 97212

You could also go to the www.freemikehawash.org website and click the proper button to contribute online. Glad you are going to put your money where your mouth is too.


*blank look* What? You mean, you weren't actually going to donate? I'm so surprised ...






NOT! :D

Look, like I said. The guy could be the devil himself. I don't know, and I don't care. What I care about is the death of the Constitution.

You are worried about terrorism. That's understandable. But tyranny is far more deadly than terrorism.

174,000,000 men, women, and children were murdered by their governments in the 20th century. Do you want your grandkids to be among the statistics when the deaths by government are tallied up at the end of the next century?

pax

The more power a government has, the more it can act arbitrarily according to the whims and desires of the elite, the more it will make war on others and murder its foreign and domestic subjects. The more constrained the power of governments, the more it is diffused, checked and balanced, the less it will aggress on others and commit democide. -- R.J. Rummel

[Zander]

Ah, Zander, I'm glad you asked.Hardly.

But tyranny is far more deadly than terrorism. I don't see any distinction whatsoever.

174,000,000 men, women, and children were murdered by their governments in the 20th century. Do you want your grandkids to be among the statistics when the deaths by government are tallied up at the end of the next century?IOW, you equate the detaining of an American citizen with the wholesale slaughter of hundreds of millions of innocent subjects by regimes which we conquered with the blood, sweat, tears and economic power of American might?

The guy could be the devil himself. I don't know, and I don't care. What I care about is the death of the Constitution.Then his detention represents a precursor to the "death" of the Constitution, in your opinion?

Your effort consists solely of listing a URL? Forgive me if I'm underwhelmed. What initiated his detention as a material witness? Please be specific. I asked you to make your case; emotional rhetoric based on specious correlations won't convince anyone who thinks critically.

[Ian]

What initiated his detention as a material witness?They refuse to say, because its a "terrorism" investigation, all the warrants are sealed. For all we know, he cut off the prosecutor on the highway or something.

Then his detention represents a precursor to the "death" of the Constitution, in your opinion?IMO, it does not. The Constitution died years ago - this man's incarceration is simply another blatant proof of its death.

Don Gwinn is right on; give them an inch and they will eventually take a lightyear. Congress was originally give power to regulate interstate commerce in order to prevent the use of interstate tariffs, which would be seriously detrimental to trade. It has become the power of unlimited regulation over any commercial intercourse which might affect interstate trade patterns. Look at the income tax, the FCC, the War on Some Drugs, Social Security, Social Security numbers, gun control, or virtually any other government operation and you'll see the same pattern. You can already see it in this area, if you look at ex parte Milligan, ex parte Quirin, Korematsu vs US, and now the PATRIOT Act.

[Justin Moore]

Congress was originally give power to regulate interstate commerce in order to prevent the use of interstate tariffs, which would be seriously detrimental to trade. It has become the power of unlimited regulation over any commercial intercourse which might affect interstate trade patterns. Look at the income tax, the FCC, the War on Some Drugs, Social Security, Social Security numbers, gun control, or virtually any other government operation and you'll see the same pattern.

Ian is right on here, as is Don.

Read the very important gory details about the 'commerce clause' here:

http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa-216.html

snippet/teaser:

On November 8, election day, the Supreme Court will hear one of the most important and unusual cases to come before it in a long time, a case that raises fundamental questions about the power of Congress to legislate as it has for nearly 60 years. In that case, United States v. Lopez, the Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit struck down the 1990 Gun-Free School Zones Act, finding it beyond the power of Congress to enact. Such a finding is all but unheard of in the post-New Deal era.

As written and originally understood, the Constitution limits the federal government primarily by enumerating its powers, which the Tenth Amendment confirms by declaring that those powers not delegated to the federal government are reserved to the states or to the people. For a century and a half, the Supreme Court enforced those restraints. But with the New Deal and Roosevelt's "Court-packing" scheme, the Court retreated from its traditional role, enabling Congress to indulge an ever-expanding array of powers. Today, under the Court's boundless reading of the Commerce Clause, which gives Congress power to regulate commerce among the states, the doctrine of enumerated powers is all but dead. Yet that doctrine was meant by the Framers to be the centerpiece of the Constitution, the principal restraint on federal power.

At bottom, then, Lopez is not about gun control or even about federal-state relations but about whether the Court is ready to hold Congress to its constitutional limits. The Court should. For if the enumerated powers doctrine is in fact dead, other constitutional protections are in jeopardy as well.

Introduction and Background:

The Lopez Case and Enumerated Powers in the 1990s
In September 1993 an unusual legal event took place: a U.S. Court of Appeals struck down a federal law as unconstitutional because, it said, Congress had no constitutional authority to pass the law. The case, United States v. Lopez,(1) involved a challenge to the Gun-Free School Zones Act, part of the 1990 crime bill.(2) The court held the act unconstitutional because Congress, in drafting it, had referred to no source of constitutional authority and because the most plausible source, the power of Congress to regulate commerce among the states, would be unavailable in this case, there being no commerce at issue.

[Al Norris]

Zander, you have asked this particular question, several times and in different ways:

What initiated his detention as a material witness? Please be specific. I asked you to make your case; emotional rhetoric based on specious correlations won't convince anyone who thinks critically.

The fact of the matter is that you have been answered several times and in several ways. But let me be perfectly clear, so that you can not mistake the answer.

No one, outside of certain "authorities" knows what initiated the detention. The warrents are sealed under "national security" interests.


Now....




....this being the case, as it most assuredly is, how then does someone answer your question? Your very question on the face of the "evidence" is tantamount to asking one to prove a negative. Thoroughly disengenuious at worst and an attempt to create a diversion at best.

Secret warrants; secret courts or tribunals; secret detentions are repugnant to the Constitution. Not just to the Constitution, but to the very fabric and beliefs of Americans themselves. Period. Call this totalitarianism, tyranny or terrorism, since you seem to make no distinction, call it anything you will except Rule Of Law.

As I wrote before, the fact that we are having this discussion at all, is certainly telling.

[pax]

IOW, you equate the detaining of an American citizen with the wholesale slaughter of hundreds of millions of innocent subjects by regimes which we conquered with the blood, sweat, tears and economic power of American might?
Nope. I'm telling you that once the safeguards are removed, the buzz saw is no longer safe.

And you're right: tyranny is terrorism. Thanks for pointing that out.

pax

Fire, water and government know nothing of mercy. -- Albanian Proverb

[DRC]

Trying to fit a square peg into a round hole 101 ;)

After reading numerous articles on this case I can say (from my perspective) without reservation that all will come to light in due time. The problem we have here is that we are all dogs barking at a "whodotheres." "We don't know" because the documents are sealed which everyone has admitted to and which was what I said from the beginning. My contention is that there is more to this story than meets the eye and I stand by that statement, even moreso since this case is becoming more and more public and authorities still aren't budging.

Don made some very salient points but they were based on interpretation by the courts and by himself. Here's a couple of rhetorical questions for the masses based on:

"Amendment VI

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."

What's the definition of public? Everyone and their dog? Those directly involved? Those in the court? The media printing the story? And what happens if after all propper court proceeding are finished where Mike Hawash is concerned but he has a gag order placed on him and the official outcome and information of the case is "Classified"? It's happened before and is a perfectly legal possibility. So then what?

What's the definition of the word "speedy"? Quick? How quick? Fast? Soon? I've heard a few stating that 24 hours is the cutoff and should be adhered to, but that's not what the Constitution says and we all want to adhere to the Constitution correct? So "speedy" would be how long? As soon as possible? What if the courts are so tied up with other cases on the dockets that two months WOULD be considered "speedy"? Otherwise what would one propose? That we hold the proceding without Judges and lawyers out in the town square and hope that our interpretations are good ones and pretend like it was all legal? I could go further with so many questions of interpretation in this Amendment that it's not even funny. It's interpretation and who's interpreting it.

I must also ask if anyone has read any of the articles (other than the "Free Mike Hawash" page? The judge agreed with Mikes detention, a governement official "in the loop" requested access and basically said "No comment" after getting what little he did get information wise, another was denied access but is trying to push for Mikes release at his families request, gag orders have been issued, four character witnesses have been deposed on Mike Hawash's behalf including his wife. For all anyone knows Mike has been told why he's being held but since that information is priviledged we ain't gettin' it until all is said and done in as "speedy" a manner as is necessary to assure the safety and well being of any and all involved.

Abuses of the laws in the Constitution happen everyday unfortunately. Do I like it? No. Do I think this case is an abuse of Constitutional law? By interpretation of Constitutional law, Yes if all aspects of this case fall into these catagories. The problem being I, you, me, we have no clue whatsoever because we have no specifics of the case since the documents are sealed presently. All we know (or to be more truthful "think we know") is that Mike Hawash is being detained against his will without being charged for too long, other than that we got bupkus ;) As has been stated he needs to be charged or released if the propper protocol is not being followed via the Constitution of the United States of America but then we go right back to interpretations of the Amendments and what falls within the constraints of those laws. It's a viscious circle but a circle nonetheless. We've assumed that this is a violation of Constitutional rights and Constitutional law and yet we don't know anything about it. So does that mean that I can condemn someone or something I know nothing about just because someone else that I don't know said I should based on nothing more than their interpretation of what's going on because they aren't prevy to the information and it really ticks them off in any facet of life?

I'm not anti-Constitution I am however, "Quit passing judgement on the situation until you know something." (emphasis on "...until you know something." in my statements. I'm not sure why that's as difficult to understand as it seems to be.

Anyway take care and it will be intresting to find out what the situtation really is be it violations or justified.

DRC

[John Galt]

Where is there terrorist laws on this case?


He was arrested on March 20 & was in court on March 21 with his attorney. Mike agreed to a detention hearing of April 7.

That was 3 weeks into the future. Why did he agree to a date so far out?

Also, if he is simply being held as a witness, why search his house? Also, what evidence was presented for the search warrant? Does he have a copy of that?

If this happened to me, I would demand to be deposed or questioned by the Grand Jury within 5 days total or promise to not testify.


This case sounds much more fishy than is being presented by his family. If they are correct, I hope they sue and win.

[rick_reno]

http://www.cnn.com/2003/LAW/04/28/oregon.terror.charges/index.html

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- Federal authorities charged a seventh person Monday with plotting to aid al Qaeda and Taliban forces fighting U.S. soldiers after the 2001 terrorist attacks.

Charges were filed Monday against Maher Hawash, a 39-year-old software engineer and U.S. citizen living in the Portland, Oregon, area.

Hawash, who has been held as a material witness, was charged with conspiracy to levy war against the United States, conspiracy to provide services to the Taliban and al Qaeda and conspiracy to provide material support and resources to terror organizations, the Justice Department said.

In a 41-page affidavit filed along with a criminal complaint in U.S. District Court in Portland, an FBI agent attached to the joint terrorism task force alleged that Hawash had traveled to China in an attempt to gain entrance into Afghanistan to fight U.S. forces after September 11, 2001.

When Hawash was unable to enter Afghanistan, he returned to the United States and, when questioned, told officials he had traveled to China for business purposes, the agent said.

The Justice Department said Hawash was part of a Portland-based group of six other suspects who have already been charged in the alleged plan.

Jeffrey Leon Battle, Patrice Lumumba Ford, Ahmed Abrahim Bilal, Muhammad Imbrahim Bilal, Abdullah Al Saoub, and October Martinique Lewis were indicted by a federal grand jury in Oregon on the charges last October. All are in custody except Al Saoub, a Jordanian who remains at large.

Hawash's neighbors became suspicious after the September 11 terrorist attacks and called the FBI, according to the affidavit. One of the neighbors said Hawash, who worked for Intel, was "spending more time at home following September 11, 2001" and "was not as friendly as usual."

"Following a visit by Hawash's mother in the spring of 2001, Hawash changed his attire from 'Western' clothing to 'Eastern' clothing, grew a beard and distanced himself from his neighbors," one neighbor said.

The affidavit said a subsequent FBI investigation showed Hawash left the United States on October 24, 2001, for Hong Kong and Beijing, hoping to enter Pakistan and then Afghanistan. The document said no evidence was found substantiating Hawash's claim that he was on a business trip to China.

In recent months Hawash's friends have mounted a campaign to draw attention to his imprisonment and the secrecy surrounding it. Hawash's friends and colleagues had started a legal defense fund for his benefit. He has been in custody about six weeks.

Prior to the release of the criminal complaint Monday, government officials had refused to discuss the circumstances around Hawash's imprisonment.

Government sources had told CNN that investigators were looking into possible connections between Hawash and the six others charged with providing material support to al Qaeda. Sources said Hawash attended the same mosque as two of those defendants.

However, Hawash's alleged effort to join the co-conspirators to help the Taliban fight U.S. forces in Afghanistan was not previously disclosed.

Federal prosecutors had faced a deadline of Tuesday set by a federal judge to interview Hawash, and a hearing in federal court had been set for then.

[DRC]

So there was more to this story than met the eye I guess. My contention from the start.

Take care,

DRC

[rock jock]

So there was more to this story than met the eye I guess. My contention from the start.
Yes, but for some, details shouldn't interfere with a lot of chest-thumping.

[Derek Zeanah]

Yes, but for some, details shouldn't interfere with a lot of chest-thumping.And for others, the issue (as stated so eloquently above) is simply that the facts of what this joker did/didn't do and whatever he was/wasn't accused of are irrelevant. The issue on the table is that a US Citizen had his constitutional rights violated, and it's frightening how many people simply don't care.

:(

[Zander]

Hawash, who has been held as a material witness, was charged with conspiracy to levy war against the United States,...Sure got quiet in here, didn't it? :cool:

And just as I was getting ready to send that check to Maher's legal-defense fund...

Anybody else get as big a laugh as I did when reading the names of his conspirators?

[DRC]

"And for others, the issue (as stated so eloquently above) is simply that the facts of what this joker did/didn't do and whatever he was/wasn't accused of are irrelevant. The issue on the table is that a US Citizen had his constitutional rights violated, and it's frightening how many people simply don't care."

...is that if this man left the country to take up arms against the USA he is no longer a US citizen at that point nor is he considered a citizen if he conspired against the USA. So technically (and I believe legally, correct me if I'm wrong) he is not a US citizen under those circumstances and therefore a "US Citizen" did not have his constitutional rights violated because by doing what he did he denounced his citizenship to this great country. This is even documented on US passports if memory serves.

So do I and others just not care? Hardly. We want the facts before we pass judgements, this keeps us from making the wrong judgement.

Take care,

DRC