So what quantifies a middle ground? No evidence is when someone is ‘suspected’ of something. If you had evidence it would be ‘confirmed’.
Such a blanket statement begs abuse for the state to decide what construes a threat to the majority and what steps you can take against an ‘dangerous’ individual.
Pieces of shit don’t have rights. So why not grab them off the streets and hook them up to car batteries.
So what rights do they have? Any at all?
So even Ben Franklin would support the suspension of rights? Somehow I doubt it.
Besides showing ignorance of the Geneva Convention you fail to understand this is not a WAR. You can’t declare war on this anymore then you can declare a war on poverty or drugs like I mentioned.
bolding mine. Throw the rights in the garbage? Doesn’t sound like a happy middle ground to me.
So you want a different category that abridges their rights. Like the rights that try to separate the guilty from the innocent the suspected from the confirmed. Tell me if you were yanked off the street because of some bad intel, had no access to a lawyer, no access to the outside, no evidence was presented against you, and were being verbally and perhaps physically abused how are you going to prove you’re not a terrorist? I think you come from a fairy land where only the guilty are punished and the innocent are never accused…
Okay, Uncommon Sense, so let’s get back to the OP…Why wouldn’t one consider someone in the highest levels of the U.S. government who has given incredibly sensitive and secret information to a foreign national of dubious reputation who then gave it to the Iranians, and thus done grave damage to our national security, to be a terrorist or something equally bad?
Do you think this person is entitled to their Constitutional rights or have they forfeited them by their actions?
And, by the way, in this case, we have what is apparently very good evidence that a crime actually occurred here, not vague evidence that it was being plotted!
In case, you aren’t up-to-date on what we’re talking about, here’s a cite.
They’ve shown no indication that they would destroy anything other then high profile symbolic targets.
What? Is this the Dukes of Hazzard where we give up if they make it to the county line? Thank fucking og no.
If we are staking out a terrorist cell, and they pick up and move to a different state, it’s certainly within the realm of reason that we would a) follow them to the next state b) transfer authority to new state for their people to stake them out.
I wonder how Uncommon Sense would feel if some FBI agents knocked on his door, then hauled him off to an “undisclosed location” because they suspected him of being a terrorist.
Uncommon Sense: “You can’t do this to me! I have rights!” FBI agent: “Individual liberties take a back seat to national security (the good of the majority). Or another way, the safety of the majority trumps any one person’s rights.”
OK fellas.
After having slept on the issue and giving it considerable thought…
I think there needs to be seperate channels to deal with those who engage in terrorism. An acceptable definition of who is a terrorist and what is considered terrorism would have to be in place. Then, anyone suspected of such actions would be channelled through this seperate system.
Their (more restricted) rights accorded to them under this new system will be upheld. I believe we need to be able to lean on them a little more than the current laws/rights would allow. I think this would accomplish two things. They would either break under the pressure and the information the authorities need would be available sooner, or, the authorities could determine at an earlier date that the person is indeed innocent without dragging said person through months of interrogation and trial. People would realize that engaging in such activity could result in a loss of some of their rights. They could then decide if the consequences of engaging in such activities is worth the loss of some of their rights. If they choose to continue then they have de facto given up certain rights.
I beleive certain agencies such as the DEA, the DNR, the IRS and the ATF already have very strict policies regarding what rights individuals have when they suspect someone has broken their laws.
I understand that the DNR can take your boat from you for having just one fish over the limit, is this fair? Is this a violation of your rights?
Immediate confiscation of material possessions and incarceration upon suspection of wrongdoing is common.
In certain cases it’s cut and dry. Guy has a bag of heroin in the trunk and two thousand in cash in the glovebox…guilty.
Guy has a map of the Federal Buildings natural gas pipes, a hit list, and some C-4…guilty.
Interesting point. If I was doing things that I knew ahead of time would bring suspicion then I would have to accept the results. I think staying off the FBI’s list of possible terror suspects should be as easy as blinking for cripes-sake.
Spooje, if they’re holding me for two years, I must have done something to raise suspicion, something that makes me a danger to society, no? Do you actually believe that there are people being held in this manner that are completely innocent? I’m hoping that the authorities would have the sense to come to a conclusion in a reasonable amount of time. A couple of months, maybe, not two years.
You don’t hold someone for 2 years with legal counsel on “suspicion” Jose Padiila has been held as an enemy combatant for 2 fucking years. He has not been able to speak to a lawyer. He has NOT BEEN CHARGED WITH A CRIME!!! This is abhorant to the American System of Justice.
If you are convinced that a man has commited a crime, then charge him and try him. If you don’t have enough evidence to convict him, then what the fuck made you assume he was guilty of anything???
What is the reason they are still holding him? Do they fear they loose access to him once he gets in court? I’m familiar with the case, I just haven’t heard a sound reason why they haven’t proceeded with the evidence.
Since we have no idea what the FBI’s criteria are for considering someone a terrorist suspect, how would you know? Maybe you’ve been spending several nights for the last few weeks in an AOL chatroom, debating politics with some Islamic fundamentalist, and suddenly you get placed on a “suspect list” because you’re “associating with suspicious personnel.”
Despite what they’d like to show in the movies, most terrorists don’t go around with ski masks in their back pockets, pipe bombs in their trunks, and big blinking neon signs reading “Evildoer HERE” over their heads. Let’s remember that most of the 9/11 hijackers were clean-shaven guys with Medditeranian complexions who liked to go drinking and hang out at strip clubs…
About as easy as staying off the “no-fly” list? The agencies in charge (FBI and TSA) aren’t telling anyone the criteria for getting on the list or, more importantly, what people can do to have their names cleared. And a lot of innocent folks are ending up getting flagged as “terror suspects”.
Do you hear yourself? They have labeled him an enemy combatant. They suspect him in a plot to do something or other. they WILL NOT SAY what evidence they have. I suspect it’s because they have jack shit. Now, after 2 years, they say they have a confession from him. As if that means anything now. After 2 years in custody without access to counsel, how can his ‘confession’ be ANYTHING but coerced?? Because 2 years in custody, without being charged, is in itself coersion.
If they have evidence against him, they can try and convict him. They then have access to him for however long his sentence would be. If they have no evidence, than our cherished system of justice says they don’t get to hold him. You’ve heard of constitutional rights? The right to an attorney? DENIED! The right to a speedy trial? DENIED! The right to confront the witnesses against you? DENIED!!! This is an American citizen.
I don’t know if the fucker is guilty or not. Neither does anyone else. The law says he’s assumed innocent until proven guilty.
You think it can’t happen to you. I pray you are right. But I don’t think you are.