Arab-American detained 2 weeks w/o charges... Whaddya think?

[zigaretten]

Originally posted by rjung
I think the paranoia isn’t as unfounded as you may believe.

Originally posted by chula
The reason why people are upset is that the government is no longer providing those Constitutional protections to everyone.

First chula, which of the protections which I listed have been denied to Hawash (or anyone else, for that matter)? Did agents not have to apply to a judge for a warrant? Didn’t a judge make a determination that Hawash is, in fact a material witness, etc.? Has Hawash demanded a hearing before a federal judge and been refused? I haven’t seen any of that.

Now rjung, I appreciate Mr Heymann’s opinions, but let’s remember that opinions is all they are. For instance, he says that 44 material witness arrests is “an unprecedented number,” but that doesn’t seem to square too well with figures from the Compendium of Federal Justice Statistics which indicate:

1998……3,398 MW arrests by fed. agents
1999……4,016 MW arrests by fed. agents (same site, just found a more accurate number)
2000……4,203 MW arrests by fed. agents

I sincerely do not understand how he can refer to 44 arrests over a year and a half as “unprecedented.”

Mr Heymann also states that the material witness statute “was not meant to be used that way” indicating, I believe (your article is a little vague here), that the statute should only be used to hold people for testimony. But CBS Consultant Andrew Cohen described the statute back in 2001 (before the current attack on the statute became “fashionable”):

A “material witness” is……a suspect in a criminal investigation………who is important enough — “material” enough, if you will — to warrant being held in custody for a period of time……

………Usually, law enforcement officials will hold someone as a “material witness” when they are concerned that the person will flee their jurisdiction but don’t yet have the goods on that person to actually charge him with a crime……

…….The “material witness” procedure is one way for the police to get their hands on someone right away, to get someone off the street immediately, and see where the particular investigation goes from there…….

………for example, Terry Nichols initially was wanted as a “material witness” before he was later charged…….

This suggests to me that, regardless of the way the statute was “meant” to be used, there appears to be a history of using the statute in exactly the fashion that it is being used now.

And let’s note that not everyone shares Mr Heymann’s opinion that the present use of the statute is such a bad thing. Here are some opinions which managed to creep into a generally critical article in the Chicago Tribune:

“I do think the idea of using the material witness procedure in this circumstance is a brilliant one and totally appropriate," said George Terwilliger, who was deputy attorney general in the first Bush administration. “The fact that it is subject to judicial oversight and supervision should give people a great deal of comfort that this is not government run amok.”

“There is judicial oversight for this, and I don’t think that’s just a rubber stamp," said Glenn Lammi, an attorney with the Washington Legal Foundation. "Holding them is a legitimate use of law-enforcement power………”

So, as is so often the case, opinion on this matter seems divided.

[Apos]

—I am not a lawyer, but the above all sounds a great deal like “due process” to me.—

Sounds like a process, but is it what anyone understands as being due process?

If a person has no lawyer, how can they argue their side? A warrant is essentially the government presenting claims to a judge. The judge doesn’t do research, and in many of these cases, all he gets are claims: the substantiation of them is protected by national security. But this sort of unopposed warrant only makes sense when the subject can use legal counsel to challenge the warrant. In these cases, the clock can run without any adversary ever appearing. The whole point of the justice system is that truth is not determined by a single claiming authority: its determined through a process of criticism and challenge.

Your same cite notes that several Saudi citizens were detained and then later released. What happened to the evidence of their guilt? And what would happen if a foriegn government wasn’t around to advocate they either be charged or released? What evidence was the judge’s ruling based on in this case, seeing as the government not only couldn’t present any, and itself determined that they didn’t want to hold these people any longer?

[zigaretten]

Originally posted by Apos
Sounds like a process, but is it what anyone understands as being due process?

If a person has no lawyer, how can they argue their side?

From above: “Any person who is detained as a material witness has a right to demand a hearing before a federal judge and the right to counsel, appointed at government expense, if necessary……”

Originally posted by Apos
A warrant is essentially the government presenting claims to a judge. The judge doesn’t do research, and in many of these cases, all he gets are claims………

Which is exactly the same as arrest warrants and search warrant which are being used constantly, day in and day out, all over the country.

Originally posted by Apos
The whole point of the justice system is that truth is not determined by a single claiming authority: its determined through a process of criticism and challenge.

Exactly! And our federal agent or prosecutor is prevented from exercising sole authority. He has to convince a judge that he has a legitimate reason for asking for a warrant and the “suspect” does have the right to “challenge” the legitimacy of the warrant by demanding a hearing before a federal judge (with counsel).

Originally posted by Apos
Your same cite notes that several Saudi citizens were detained and then later released. What happened to the evidence of their guilt? And what would happen if a foriegn government wasn’t around to advocate they either be charged or released?

I don’t know about you, but I live in the USA and in this country people are arrested every day only to be released later because of a lack of evidence. This is not something new. Personally, I’ll start worrying when the government stops releasing people due to lack of evidence.

[chula]

*Originally posted by zigaretten *
First chula, which of the protections which I listed have been denied to Hawash (or anyone else, for that matter)? Did agents not have to apply to a judge for a warrant? Didn’t a judge make a determination that Hawash is, in fact a material witness, etc.? Has Hawash demanded a hearing before a federal judge and been refused? I haven’t seen any of that.

I’m sorry that I can’t speak to Hawash’s case. But there are many people who have been denied every single one of the due process protections you listed. I can’t tell you exactly how many, because they U.S. government won’t let them speak to anyone and won’t release their names. If that’s not scary, I don’t know what is.