Do I think he’s likely to commit a terrorist act-based on the evidence we have so far?
No.
Why, pray tell do YOU think he WILL?
>> Based on all you know, how certain are you that he’s not a terrorist?
This is a pointless question if I ever saw one. Why would I need to have an answer to this? I have not been given any evidence nor have I been asked to be in any jury. Your question is absolutely pointless and meaningless. I have no personal opinion except that is a British judge declares there’s not enough evidence to even bring him to trial, that’s good enough for me.
The point is that what Ashcroft and Co. consider to be sufficient evidence for a reasonable suspicion (not even for guilt) which would entitle them to extradition, did not even begin to move the scale of justice with a British judge. To me that is more than sufficient evidence that what Ashcroft considers sufficient evidence, a reasonable person may consider very insufficient. And that is worrying.
Our friend December is playing games learned in the first week of logic 101. He is demanding evidence of a negative, and a speculative negative at that. Show me that the sun at some time in the undefined future will not rise in the east. Show me it is impossible for this guy to do a terrorist act in the future.
What our friend does not appreciate, or willfully chooses to ignore, is that an open system does not work that way. The system does not require that the object of the State’s hostility demonstrate his innocence and his future good behavior as a condition of freedom. The system requires the State demonstrate a good reason to think that the object of its attention has done a bad thing as a condition to depriving him of life, liberty or property. In the absence of such a showing the object goes free. That’s the way it works. Any other system is despotism. Our friend’s question is irrelevant.
Which bring to mind all those people who are locked up at Gitmo. They are neither POWs nor criminal defendants. Are the interred, in the same manner as RAF aircrews that landed in Ireland during WWII? Are they “political prisoners?”
>> Based on all you know, how certain are you that he’s not a terrorist?
This is a pointless question if I ever saw one. Why would I need to have an answer to this? I have not been given any evidence nor have I been asked to be in any jury. Your question is absolutely pointless and meaningless. I have no personal opinion except that is a British judge declares there’s not enough evidence to even bring him to trial, that’s good enough for me.
The point is that what Ashcroft and Co. consider to be sufficient evidence for a reasonable suspicion (not even for guilt) which would entitle them to extradition, did not even begin to move the scale of justice with a British judge. To me that is more than sufficient evidence that what Ashcroft considers sufficient evidence, a reasonable person and a judge may consider very insufficient. And that is worrying.
OK - let me try to explain my POV and drop the Socratic approach. As I see it, there are 3 points[list=1]
[li]Did the judge make the right legal decision. We all agree that he did.[/li][li]Ashcroft lost a case.[/li][li]Either a terrorist has been set free or an innocent person has been set free.[/li][/list=1] I think all three points are important. Some of you seem to think that #3 is not important.
This is closer than you might imagine. He was an Assistant Professor in the UC Berkeley math department while a was a graduate student there. I never knew him. More importantly, he never knew me!
december so you’re admitting that I’m correct. That your real question is “why aren’t we lowering the bar on evidence and supporting proof in these cases”.
To be focused on your ‘#3’ there, 'what if he were guilty and we let him free ‘cause there was insufficient evident’, is answered 'well, we’ve let him free ‘cause there was an insufficiency of evidence’ . to suggest otherwise is to lower the bar (see my above paragraph).
or is this a “Soft Xynophobia Of Desired Lowered Evidentiary Standards” ?
If I had to put money down, I’d bet he’s terrorist. But that doesn’t mean I want the gov’t imprisoning people when there’s not enough evidence. I actually believe in the “innocent until proven guilty” concept, and the requirement of proof.
Let me ask you some questions, December.
Do you think “more likely guilty than not” is good enough to imprison someone?
Do you trust the gov’t to have secret trials without public scrutiny?
>> Ashcroft lost a case.
That’s what this thread is about and the only relevant point. That what he considers irrefutable evidence is considered empty by a judge. That is cause for concern.
>> Either a terrorist has been set free or an innocent person has been set free
For all intents and purposes he is an innocent person. Do you ask yourself such questions about every person you see on the street? And why would thios be relevant to this thread. The question is totally out of place here as a hijack. But you may want to start another thread centered on that topic but that belongs in IMHO, not here.
Thanks for helping me to explain what I really meant, wring 
What I really meant was that of the 3 points I listed, I feel good about #1, I can appreciate why a lot of you feel good about #2, but I feel bad about letting a terrorist go. I don’t claim to know what we should do about it.
Thanks for helping me to explain what I really meant, wring
What I really meant was that of the 3 points I listed, I feel good about #1, I can appreciate why a lot of you feel good about #2, but I feel bad about letting a terrorist go. I don’t claim to know what we should do about it.
December, give us some suggestions as to how #3 can be rectified. Surely you don’t want to give the gov’t power to convict people without evidence? Throw us a bone here, what do you want?
let me help you feel better about it december - lowering the bar on what constitutes sufficient proof and evidence in these cases destroys the Constitution, our system of justice, our civil liberties. And, frankly if the destruction of the “American way of life” was the aim of the terrorists to do as you suggests, aids them
which means, of course, that you’d be guilty of aiding the terrorists. [queen of hearts] OFF WITH HIS HEAD [/queen of hearts]
december: However, it also matters to me whether he’s actually innocent or guilty…How certain are each of you in your own mind that he’s not a terrorist? Are you positive? Is it 50-50? Do you think he probably does have some connection with al Quaeda? Do you feel certain that he is a terrorist?
The thing is, december, that what any of us thinks about his guilt or innocence has absolutely nothing to do with his actual guilt or innocence (or at least, if any of us does have genuine information on that subject that wasn’t available to the court, that person should contact the FBI immediately. Thank you).
I quite understand that you think it’s important to know whether “a terrorist has been set free or an innocent person has been set free”—so do we all—but the point is that we have no way of knowing that except through the mechanism of due legal process. Gut reactions like “feel[ing] bad about letting a terrorist go” (for which, btw, Mr. Raissi could probably sue you for libel) are simply no use at all in determining what the truth really is.
This is a toughie. In general, my answer would be of course not. For someone who may be likely to kill many innocent people, it’s not clear.
As I understand the US case, Ashcorft wanted to use some minor violations as an excuse to imprison Raissi. That’s more-or-less what they did with the several hundred suspects who they originally rounded up.
Again, this is a toughie. In general, the question ought not arise. The Constitution requires public trials.
However, I admit that I would trust my government to conduct secret trials, if necessary for security reasons. AFAIK Bush, Ashcroft and I are all on the same side in the War on Terror.
As to how #3 can be rectified – that’s beyond me. I suspect that if Raissi had been in the US he would have been imprisoned on the minor technical violations. For better or for worse, those weren’t sufficient to justify extradition.
wring, first of all, I have not recommended lowering the bar. Second, the bar has been lowered quite a bit in various past wars, but we regained our civil liberites afterwards. This point has been debated in other threads.
Maybe “all” is too strong. OJ Simpson was innocent before the murders, but he was not innocent for the purpose of saving Nicole’s life.
I’m defending Ashcroft. My point is that if Raissi is really a menace, then Ashcroft deserves some credit for trying to lock him up.
But if there’s no proof he’s a menace, then it is only Ashcroft’s opinion he’s a menace. He deserves no credit for trying to lock anybody up without sufficient proof, because that person may be innocent!
well, actually december when you suggest that to hold people w/o evidence (as the judge found), you are in fact suggesting that the bar be lowered. YOu agreed that you thought the ‘rules should be different’, and it doesn’t seem to be that you’re suggesting higher standards of proof.
You trust Bush et al? that’s nice. Of course, you understand that Bush is trusting Ashcroft, who’s trusting his subordinates, who are trusting informants who are trusting…
do you get the drift?
I sure do.
Today I noticed that an upcoming professional meeting is dedicated to my colleague Phil Miller who died in the WTC. One of the speakers there will be another friend whose son died there. This reminded me of an ex-cow-orker who finally married at age 45 and lost her husband there after less than 2 years of marriage.
Something like this could happen again. Do you get the drift?
december, I think you are not getting the point: Ashcroft believes the man is guilty and yet could not produce sufficient evidence to convince a judge there was even probable cause (forget about guilt). Sorry but to me that is more than sufficient evidence to indicate trusting the man with secret trials is crazy. (Not that I would trust anybody else)
So WHAT, december? Did Raissi personally kill your friend? NO!
I’m so sick and tired of people using the September 11 tragedy as an EXCUSE to go after innocent people just because they “might” be terrorists!
Dammit, what evidence do YOU have to think he might be a terrorist, other than “Ashcroft says so.”
Guess what? Ashcroft is not infallible!
:mad:
december: If Ashcroft had even the slightest shred of potential evidence that this guy was a terrorist, why didn’t he present it in court?