Granted, this is just one of a long line of arrest patterns that people have been protesting, but major news sources such as CNN, the NY Times, and Wired seem to be interested in this one, perhaps because of the support he seems to have with friends and family.
Now the debate: what do you all think of this use of the “material witness” warrant? Is this a sign of out-of-control paranoia and/or government power abuse? How much does it have to do with the Patriot Act and other related laws conservatives love so much? How much secrecy is too much? (This last question is currently being asked by the judge in the Moussaoui trial.)
First, please don’t lump all conservatives together. I’m generally conservative and I think this is complete bullshit. Between the War on Drugs & the War on Terrorism, I’ll be suprised if we have * any * civil liberties in about 10 years.
So, it looks to me as though we might expect several thousands of “material witness” arrests each year in the absence of any terrorist threat and that the “out-of-control paranoia and/or government power abuse” is leading to an additional 20 to 50 arrests in about a year and a half.
Doesn’t bother me much on the surface. Don’t know why the guy is in a medium security prison and not in Club Fed, though. Also don’t know why the guy hasn’t been briefed on his situation.
Lawyers – what possible danger is there from revealing to a material witness what’s going on ahead of time?
I don’t know. What facts do we have about this case?
Looks like material-witness warrants considerably pre-date the Patriot Act.
You know, if this guy wasn’t of Arabic extraction, how much attention do you think would be paid attention to his arrest. Now if the increased focus on terrorist cause ~40 more arrest a year, out of 4,400 total, that just doesn’t seem like an abuse of government power to me.
Why does the arrest of ONE person mean the entire legal system is invalid and all of us citizens are in danger of losing our rights?
The purpose of the legal system is to maintain an orderly,stable society. And yes, we all agree that civil rights apply equally to every citizen.
But civil rights can only exist if there is an orderly ,stable society --and that is exactly what the terrorists are trying to destroy.
If society becomes unstable and people are afraid to step out of their homes, then civil rights are meaningless.
Remember the Washington sniper?–literally millions of people huddled in fear, schools were closed, society ceased to function normally.How long can we live that way?
Therefore–a person suspected of terrorism may be treated totally differently than a regular criminal. A common criminal must have all his rights protected,because the danger he poses to society (for ,say, stealing a car) is less than the danger posed to society by an unfair judicial system, or a racist police department.
But a terrorist is totally different-the danger he poses to society is vastly greater
I’ll post what I posted in the BBQ Pit:
The statute at question is 18 U.S.C. Section 3144, which states:
This statute allows the government to detain somebody who has been shown to be a material witness in a case indefinitely until the case is resolved. It’s application has been held constitutional in cases where a defendant has been charged and is awaiting trial. In Bacon v. United States, 449 F.2d 933, 937-941 (9th Cir. 1971), the Ninth Circuit allowed this type of detention to be used to hold a material witness in anticipation of his testimony before a Grand Jury. However, in United States v. Awadallah III, 202 F.Supp.2d 55 (S.D.N.Y. 2002), a Judge ruled that the material witness statute should not apply to grand jury investigations. Awadallah was recently criticized in In re
Application of U.S. for a Material Witness Warrant, 213 F.Supp.2d 287, 288+ (S.D.N.Y. Jul 11, 2002). I believe both these cases are currently on appeal. Finally, The Supreme Court has stated that a statute which permits indefinite detention of people, except in such cases as a criminal conviction or a finding that a person poses a threat to himself or others as the result of mental illness, would raise a serious constitutional problem under the Due Process Clause.
Just from my quick research, it sounds like this kind of detention is allowed, but each day the detention goes on without a grand jury being called, the more likely it will be found to be unconstitutional.
This is a letter Human Rights Watch sent to Donald Rumsfeld spelling out the violations involved in arbitrary and indefinate detention:
[quoteThe prohibition against arbitrary detention is a longstanding principle of international law. A detention is arbitrary if it violates existing laws, if it is for an indefinite or indeterminate period, or if there is no possibility to challenge its lawfulness. The Geneva Conventions provide one possible ground for detention that is not arbitrary. The Third Geneva Convention allows POWs to be detained without charge (“internment”) for the duration of the armed conflict in which they are captured (Geneva III, Art. 21). The Fourth Geneva Convention allows similar detention for “protected persons,” which, as noted, would include people of specified nationalities who take part in hostilities but are ineligible for POW status (Geneva IV, Arts. 41-46), although periodic review is required in the latter case (Geneva IV, Art. 43).
In asserting that the Geneva Conventions do not apply to alleged members of al-Qaeda, the Bush administration has rejected this authorized basis for detention and undermined its own case for holding al-Qaeda suspects without trial. The administration’s position is that even though these detainees were apprehended in Afghanistan while engaged in armed conflict against the United States, they are not combatants protected by the Geneva Conventions but mere common criminal suspects. This position is wrong as a matter of law, since the Geneva Conventions regulate the capture of the members of any organized force that is engaged in armed conflict with a state party. Moreover, the administration’s position effectively lends support to claims that these detainees are being held arbitrarily, since if they are mere criminal suspects, they should have been charged with a criminal offense and provided the opportunity to challenge the legality of their detention. The only alternative - administrative detention without criminal charge - is permissible under international law only in narrow circumstances during a state of emergency threatening the life of the nation (International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, Art. 4). The United States has not claimed that these circumstances exist. Alleged members of al-Qaeda thus must either be afforded protection under the Geneva Conventions or criminally charged without further delay and prosecuted in accordance with due process requirements. [/quote]
I suggest reading the entire letter. It’s very interesting.
Because it shows that the government is willing to ignore individual rights if it thinks fit. Once government has shown the capacity to think this way, we are all potentially at risk. That is what the constitution is supposed to protect against.
**
So our rights diminsih with the severity of the crime someone is suspected of? Maybe we can start categorizing this. How about: The Fourth Amendment is valid for all people except those suspected of murder and rape.
Rights are rights irrespective of the crime one is suspected of.
—Therefore–a person suspected of terrorism may be treated totally differently than a regular criminal.—
Anyone can be suspected of terrorism. If there’s no due process oversight, then the distinction becomes even more meaningless, because it doesn’t matter if the reasons are bogus or even non-existent.
Are you serious ** chappachula ** that terrorist should be treated differently than a normal criminal? I am generally pretty conservative, and tend to take a harsh stance against criminals and terrorist, but the Constitution clearly protects everyone’s right to due process; terrorist included, and if we don’t follow the constitution, well, whats the point of this country anyways. That being said, in this case the guy is being held as a material witness, which, according to the Supreme Court, is constitutional. If you don’t like it, then petition for a n amendment, or try to get the Supreme Court to overrule itself.
An american citizen*** must*** be charged with a statutory crime within a reasonable time of his detention, otherwize those involved in his dentention should be charged with criminal detention and themselves held until released by payment of bail as prescribed by law.
Illegal aliens in this country must be held in custody but only for a reasonable time before deportation.
Any citizen or alien that has been charged with involvement in high crimes against the general population can be denied bail by the district federal judge if it can be shown that that release could pose a danger to the populace.
Just so we remain focused on the topic of this thread, it isn’t about Guantanamo detainees (sorry Lissa, a good letter nonetheless), or about detaining people without charging them. My understanding is this man is being held as a material witness in a potential prosecution regarding an Islamic charity fund that may have been siphoning money to terrorists.
Material witenss detentions have been around awhile, and are a necessary part of the criminal justice system. However, as with a lot of issues with this administration, it appears to be being used with reckless abandon and without much regard for due process. That being said, they better get going on these cases and start some investigations or prosecutions, or, in a few more years, they’ll be paying out tons of money in 1983 suits.
Yes, DreadC–unfortunately, I am serious. Before Sept 11, I would have agreed with you–if we don’t rigorously protect every single individual’s civil rights, then we could eventually lose them for all of us. McCarthyism of the 1950’s shows how quickly the government can go overboard.
But–I still say–that terrorism is a TOTALLY different type of crime than any other. A terrorist cell of 20 people can destroy the entire country with 20 dirty bombs as effectively as the old Soviet Union could with its 20 thousand nuclear missiles.
We have always had “special”, unwritten rules for dealing with spies–if the CIA caught a KGB spy stealing nuclear secrets, nobody would cry about protecting his civil rights. The CIA could quietly kill the guy, and most Americans then and now will agree that national security is so important that we shouldnt ask too many questions. It is a matter of life and death for millions of people.
So we need to be very, very careful.The need to prevent terrorists from destroying our country is more important than civil rights.There is no point in having civil rights if our major cities are uninhabitable.
Yes, DreadC–unfortunately, I am serious. Before Sept 11, I would have agreed with you–if we don’t rigorously protect every single individual’s civil rights, then we could eventually lose them for all of us. McCarthyism of the 1950’s shows how quickly the government can go overboard.
But–I still say–that terrorism is a TOTALLY different type of crime than any other. A terrorist cell of 20 people can destroy the entire country with 20 dirty bombs as effectively as the old Soviet Union could with its 20 thousand nuclear missiles.
We have always had “special”, unwritten rules for dealing with spies–if the CIA caught a KGB spy stealing nuclear secrets, nobody would cry about protecting his civil rights. The CIA could quietly kill the guy, and most Americans then and now will agree that national security is so important that we shouldnt ask too many questions. It is a matter of life and death for millions of people.
The need to prevent terrorists from destroying our country is more important than civil rights.There is no point in having civil rights if our major cities are uninhabitable.So we need to be very,very careful. As long as the number of individuals whose rights are violated is miniscule, then America will still be the grandest democratic society in history.