From: Samantha Atkins (samantha@objectent.com)
Date: Fri Oct 26 2001 - 00:08:15 MDT
Mike Lorrey wrote:
>
> Samantha Atkins wrote:
> >
> > Mike Lorrey wrote:
> > >
> > > Samantha Atkins wrote:
> > > >
> > > > There is nothing wrong with the government forcefully prying
> > > > open my mind or yours on the least suspicion of wrong doing or
> > > > of withholding information it wishes to acquire? What could be
> > > > more a use of force than this? What happened to the 5th
> > > > amendment? What happened to privacy? What happened to the
> > > > sacrosanct individual? All gone for a little more "security".
> > >
> > > Prisoners of War do not have 5th Amendment rights, since their actions
> > > are not considered 'crimes' per se. Moreover, nobody has a 5th amendment
> > > right in respect to knowledge of events yet to occur.
> >
> > Citizens and foreign nationals pulled in in an open sweep on no
> > grounds or very weak grounds or their nationality or the
> > ethnicity or their religion or age and gender or some
> > combination ... are "prisoners of war"? Excuse me?
>
> Once again, you are talking out your ear. Almost all were swept up on
> immigration violations. The rest were swept up because they had personal
> interaction with the known hijackers or with other al Qaeda operatives.
>
Guess again. Some were swept up on immrigation irregularities
for sure but that does not in the least make them terrorists,
likely terrorists or likely to know anything about terrorists.
Whatever infractions were useful were used in the sweeps. But
do you believe the million or two estimated to have expired
visas and such in this country should all be subject to
narcoanalysis as was proposed by you? If so, why? How do you
justify this? That you assume the rest had interactions with
know hijackers is quite interesting since you have no way of
acquiring such knowledge as most of the details and even the
identities of the 800-1000 picked up are not public. So is this
an assumption?
> In a war of insurgency, as this one is, there are no front lines to
> 'capture' prisoners on. This ain't no Stalag 13, no "Hogan's Heros",
> lady. Wake up and smell the patchouli. The enemy has infiltrated our
> homeland, they walk among us, dress like us, and try to act like good
> little westernized muslims.
>
This is more assumption on your part. There are no major
insurgents in this country. There are some terrorist
activities. But they aren't exactly the same thing. Wake up
yourself before you or yours are dragged in on some pretect.
Perhaps you are not in Hogan's Heroes but you are definitely in
some different paraonoid movie than I am. Are you now holding
all muslims suspect until/unless they undergo narcoanalysis?
If so you are a very scary individual in my book.
> Of the four particular prisoners I spoke of, who are known to have been
> involved in the 9-11 events, I have absolutely no compunctions about
> using any means to interrogate them. For the rest, I'd give them the
> option of staying here and talking or being shipped home to their own
> government police agencies along with a list of questions to ask.
I see. For any and all infractions you would ship them home
preferably to be tortured without getting any blood on your
hands. Is that accurate? Aren't you also ignoring that
nationalized citizens and people born and raised here were also
picked up in the sweeps?
>Those
> that talk, and have no probable cause, get released and/or deported (if
> they are breaking immigration law already). As far as I know, there are
> only about 150 of the 800+ still in detention, so our government isn't
> being as extreme as you are trying to make out here.
>
Dunno. I haven't heard that revised count myself. If true it
is good news except for the worry about the implied ability to
do the same and worse next time.
> >
> > People do not have the right to say "I don't know" without
> > having their minds tampered with by force to see if maybe they
> > do know or say they do under such influences and coercion?
> > Since when?
>
> Since this is NOT a civilian criminal case. This is a war. They ain't
> the same thing. Intelligence collection, especially in preventing more
> war crimes, is of paramount importance.
>
It is a civilian case until you show, not assume, that a suspect
is involved in violent activities or planning and aiding such
activities against the US. War has rules. Even prisoners of
war have some rights. But these do not qualify as POWs.
Intelligence gathering is more important than rights?
Assumptions and paraonoia trump rights? Rights are suspended
always in the name of security even if there is no proof of any
greater security acheived?
> >
> > The majority of these people are not even accused of having
> > knowledge but are brought in just in case they do or in order
> > for the government to look like it is doing something, even if
> > it is wrong, morally questionable and very dangerous to human
> > and civil rights.
>
> How do you know that?
Because there was no legal accusation against most of the people
detained. Legal accusations become matters of record. Because
very precious little was acheived except to make some of more
wary of the power exercisable in the name of "protecting" us by
our "civil servants". But I am not totally sure what you are
asking me. Are you asking how I know that it is dangerous for
government officials to have the right to drag me from my home
and hold me incommunicado on suspicion and perhaps use (if some
had their way) even administer various drugs to get me to say
what they want to hear? Are you asking me how I know that it is
dangerous and wrong to hold people without charges and
incommunicado and, if some of the stories are true, without
adequate food and facilities expected by international
conventions?
- samantha
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Nov 02 2002 - 08:11:40 MST