From: Harvey Newstrom (mail@HarveyNewstrom.com)
Date: Mon Dec 30 2002 - 21:46:29 MST
On Monday, December 30, 2002, at 10:32 am, Dehede011@aol.com wrote:
> In many other cases they returned dates on events that supposedly
> occurred back in the 90s and hence were not representative of anything
> that
> occured under the present administration or after the Patriot Act was
> passed
> by congress.
I don't know why you are having trouble getting to these sites or
having trouble understanding them when you get there. Here is a repost
of the new articles that I listed. I have double-checked all of them.
They are still available. They all reference secret evidence being
used by the current administration against Muslims after 9/11. The all
reference events for the dates I have quoted. They all contain the
exact quote I gave as the specific line of evidence. I don't see how
you can claim these articles don't reference what I claim.
On Sunday, December 29, 2002, at 03:45 pm, Harvey Newstrom wrote:
> Oct. 30, 2002: "The Justice Department on Tuesday defended the use of
> secret evidence in its case against an Islamic charity accused of
> helping terrorists, arguing that revealing the evidence could
> jeopardize the investigation and threaten national security."
> <http://216.239.53.100/
> search?q=cache:osIFDFEI3P4C:www.dailysouthtown.com/southtown/dsnews/
> 3011nd1.htm+%22secret+evidence%22+and+terrorism&hl=en&ie=UTF-8>
The Bush Administration's own Justice department defended the use of
secret evidence in two months ago. How is this not evidence?
> Aug 25, 2002: "U.S. authorities deported al-Arian's brother-in-law
> Mazen al-Najjar, 45, to the Middle East after he had spent more than
> four years in custody without criminal charges -- most of that time
> based on secret evidence.....never charged with a crime."
>
> April 25, 2002: "Muslim leader jailed on secret evidence"
> <http://www.workers.org/ww/2002/haddad0425.php>
Yes this story describes a case four years ago, but it also describes a
Muslim leader jailed on secret evidence this past January by Ashcroft
and the Bush Administration.
> Oct. 29, 2002: "The government defended Tuesday its use of secret
> evidence against a Muslim charity accused of helping terrorists,
> arguing that laying out its case could cause 'grave damage to the
> national security.' "
> <http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-
> dyn?pagename=article&node=&contentId=A38461-2002Oct29¬Found=true>
Again, the Bush Administration's own Justiice department defended the
use of secret evidence two months ago.
> Oct 7, 2002: "The FBI testified last year that secret evidence is
> being used in 11 cases."
> <http://www.aclu.org/ImmigrantsRights/
> ImmigrantsRights.cfm?ID=10774&c=98>
Eleven cases used secret evidence last year in 2001 during the Bush
Administration.
> June 12, 2002: "The judge's ruling Tuesday was partially based on
> secret government evidence that has not been shown to Global Relief's
> attorneys. In his decision, Andersen wrote that the evidence is
> "relevant to the ongoing investigation and that disclosure to Global
> Relief, while the investigation is pending, could undermine this
> investigation and others of national interest."
> <http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/specials/911/showcase/chi-
> 020612globalrelief,0,4936119.story>
Secret evidence was used six months ago in this case by the current
administration.
> May 13, 2002: "After the government froze their assets as part of a
> terrorism investigation in December, two Islamic charities fought back
> with civil lawsuits attacking the use of secret evidence and arguing
> that the freeze was unconstitutional."
> <http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/specials/911/showcase/chi-
> 020513charities,0,4864786.story>
Secret evidence was used seven months ago in his case by the Ashcroft,
et. al.
> May 6, 2002: "A federal judge ruled Friday that the government can
> use secret evidence in justifying its decision to freeze the assets of
> a Bridgeview-based Islamic charity that U.S. prosecutors suspect is
> linked to terrorism."
> <http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/specials/911/showcase/chi-
> 020406global,0,909622.story>
The current administration's prosecutors fought for the use secret
evidence in this case seven months ago.
> Dec. 9, 2001: "The Justice Department has asked a federal appeals
> court for a broad ruling to authorize the use of secret evidence in
> cases in which it is trying to detain or deport immigrants it contends
> are in the country illegally. For national security reasons, the
> government argues that it should share secret evidence with only
> immigration judges and not with the immigrants and their lawyers. "
> <http://www.pulitzer.org/year/2002/public-service/works/story2.html>
Ashcroft's Justice Department asked to use secret evidence in this case
one year ago.
> There are many more examples, but you should be able to find them
> yourself. Secret Evidence is alive and well in the current
> administration.
Are you seeing the same articles I am when you click on these links?
Are the quotes there? Are the dates the same? I'm really confused at
your claim that none of my citations contained any of my claimed
examples (or that the links have expired). They all still look good to
me, and present the evidence I claimed.
-- Harvey Newstrom, CISSP <www.HarveyNewstrom.com>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Jan 15 2003 - 17:58:58 MST