Quote :

"i'm still asking, what document/law guarantees him the right to a lawyer? Again, I know anyone ARRESTED has the right to a lawyer, but is there something that guarantees this guy, who WASNT ARRESTED, the right to a lawyer? I'm asking cause I don't know"

I'm not sure where you are going with that one but I'm guessing you'll be on the losing argument that is about to ensue from that comment.

[Edited on August 28, 2006 at 12:21 PM. Reason : -]

8/28/2006 12:21:07 PM

so you dont know the answer either apparently

also bear in mind the 6th amendment deals with trials...and this guy isnt on trial

8/28/2006 12:22:31 PM

Quote :

"you fear the people who want to protect the country more than the people who want to murder every citizen of the country"

No, I fear the one I have to deal with everyday. I fear terrorists about as much as I fear lightning.

[Edited on August 28, 2006 at 12:25 PM. Reason : ?]

8/28/2006 12:25:10 PM

you deal with the govt everyday?

i deal with them sometime before april 15th...and hopefully thats about it

8/28/2006 12:25:43 PM

I see police officers every day. If they decided to pick on me, there's no avoiding them.

8/28/2006 12:27:14 PM

What document or law says that the gov. can bar a citizen from entering the country, when they hav en't be charged with any crime?

8/28/2006 12:27:33 PM

Its not a document or law that says specifically we can not admit you back into the US. The government has some room to do what needs to be done in the interest of public safety. You have to remember, these guys constitutional rights end when they infringe/can infringe on someone elses. I dont think its unreasonable to be subjected to questions due to the circumstances

8/28/2006 12:39:48 PM

Quote :

"s there something that guarantees this guy, who WASNT ARRESTED, the right to a lawyer? I'm asking cause I don't know"

Sigh. Ok, let me turn this around for you.

Is there something out there that says that you absolutely cannot get a lawyer if you want one? What document denies people that haven't been arrested the right to hire a lawyer? I haven't been arrested. Is there something out there that prevents me from going out and getting a lawyer today if I so choose? The only thing that would prevent someone that hasn't been arrested from getting a lawyer is 1) lack of need or 2) lack of money. You could probably hire one even if you lacked the former.

8/28/2006 12:40:52 PM

Quote :

"Its not a document or law that says specifically we can not admit you back into the US. The government has some room to do what needs to be done in the interest of public safety. You have to remember, these guys constitutional rights end when they infringe/can infringe on someone elses. I dont think its unreasonable to be subjected to questions due to the circumstances"

Yes, that part is understood.

The issue is how can they deny him having a lawyer present (if that is in fact what they did)? TreeTwist is implying that they are allowed to block a US citizen from entering the country, without charging him, and preventing him from having a lawyer present during questioning that could lead to his arrest

8/28/2006 12:44:59 PM

^^nothing is preventing you from going out and getting a lawyer today if you want to

but i would imagine you are not the relative of someone convicted of attending a terrorist training camp in pakistan, the same country you've been living in for the past 4 years

and my question about what guarantees someone the RIGHT to an attorney since the 6th Amendent and Miranda Rights dont come into play since the person hasnt been arrested or doesnt have to go to a trial...can anybody answer that question?

^no i'm asking you to use common sense here instead of acting like ACLU lawyers yourselves

8/28/2006 12:45:05 PM

I think what Twista is asking is what constitutional right (or legal right) is there that says you are allowed to speak with a lawyer during questioning by the FBI in another country. Someone look into a court-case and just show us that he is guaranteed the right to consult with a lawyer under those circumstances and that argument disintegrates.

Again, my question remains: You can't stay in another country for 4 years without a shit-ton of paperwork. Even being that these guys were Americans, did they have all the proper paperwork?

And...did I hear he was on the no-fly list? I mean, if you're on the no-fly list then you can't fly into our country...regardless of your citizenship. Talk to Cat Stephens about it.

8/28/2006 12:47:07 PM

Quote :

"The father and son were forced to pay for a flight back to Islamabad because they were on the government's "no-fly" list, Mass said. Muhammad Ismail's wife, teenage daughter and younger son, who were not on the list, continued on to the United States."

apparently the govt didnt have any suspicion of the other three so they let them into the country...yet they had suspicion for the two on the no-fly list...so they didnt let them fly

8/28/2006 12:50:28 PM

^^The only paperwork you need is a US Passport. Trust me. I was out of the country for just over 2 years and that's all they required. The country you are staying it will require a VISA, but why would the US care about a VISA to the country you are leaving.

Both the US passport and VISA to the country I was living in lasted for 10 years.

^Yeah, I'm starting to think that they could have avoided this whole mess if they just took a boat

[Edited on August 28, 2006 at 12:51 PM. Reason : ^^ -]

8/28/2006 12:50:51 PM

^you didn't happen to be on the no-fly list, did you? Cause its like you were almost in the same situation as them, except you weren't on the no-fly list and your uncle wasnt convicted of being in a terrorist training camp (i would imagine)

also did your abroad travels happen to occur before or after 9/11/01? also do you mind me asking what country?

8/28/2006 12:51:48 PM

^It was in response to this:

Quote :

"Again, my question remains: You can't stay in another country for 4 years without a ****-ton of paperwork. Even being that these guys were Americans, did they have all the proper paperwork?"

Which says nothing of the situation of being on a no fly list. Unless some of that ton of paperwork includes a "get out of a no-fly list free" card

8/28/2006 12:53:26 PM

I would think the US government should care where its citizens go. I mean, lets say I leave the country with my passport and don't show up until 30 years later. That really doesn't pose any problem except my passport being expired?

If it doesn't, then I think it should. I mean, I guess now that you mention it the questions about how long I'm staying and what-not are always asked by the country I'm entering, but I just assumed they passed the info back and forth.

Carry on then.

8/28/2006 12:54:01 PM

^^

Quote :

"also did your abroad travels happen to occur before or after 9/11/01? also do you mind me asking what country?"

8/28/2006 12:54:25 PM

Quote :

"no i'm asking you to use common sense here instead of acting like ACLU lawyers yourselves"

My common sense is irrelevant. It's the gov.'s common sense that I don't trust, and I don't think other people should either. Our system of due process is robust enough so that if these guys have done anything wrong, they won't be allowed to return to society. If we let them abuse the rights of citizens withouth condemning them at least, it just gives them one more inch towards facism.

The gov. doesn't keep itself in balance, it's up to the people to do that. As you well know, power corrupts.

8/28/2006 12:59:51 PM

^^Pre, Dominican Republic. Is there a link to a reputable source of information that says the rules of passport carrying citizens can no longer reenter the US based on country visited and duration of visit. In this case they had other suspicions, it wasn't a case of them not having an additional piece of documentation.

Oh, I did bring this with me:

8/28/2006 1:08:07 PM

Quote :

"In this case they had other suspicions"

exactly

Quote :

"Our system of due process is robust enough so that if these guys have done anything wrong, they won't be allowed to return to society. If we let them abuse the rights of citizens withouth condemning them at least, it just gives them one more inch towards facism. "

they havent been charged with anything so i dont see what you're saying, except of course that if we dont give people related to terrorists every single right of any other citizen we will quickly be a fascist police state

8/28/2006 1:12:42 PM

so the gov't can hold me as long they want to in a foreign country as long as i'm not charged of anything? oh yeah and i gotta have brown skin.

[Edited on August 28, 2006 at 1:14 PM. Reason : wrong word]

8/28/2006 1:14:23 PM

Are they holding them? I though they were just not letting them back into the country.

8/28/2006 1:16:29 PM

^^well the "article" that nutsmackr posted (with no link I might add) was dated 2 days ago so I don't think the govt holding someone "as long as they want" has really come up yet

also i dont know if its as much having brown skin since

Quote :

"Muhammad Ismail's wife, teenage daughter and younger son, who were not on the list, continued on to the United States. "

also I don't think they just hold anybody considering

Quote :

"they are the uncle and cousin of Hamid Hayat, a 23-year-old Lodi cherry packer who was convicted in April of supporting terrorists by attending a Pakistani training camp."

that sounds to me like a pretty strong link that cousin/uncle had terrorist ties and it makes perfect sense to anyone with common sense to at least question a relative coming back into the US after 4 years in Pakistan

but this must just be TreeTwista trolling again, its not like I'm bringing up any legit points

8/28/2006 1:18:00 PM

because guilt by association holds up in a court.

8/28/2006 1:19:12 PM

guilt? he hasnt been CHARGED with anything

8/28/2006 1:20:19 PM

because if he was, he would have way more rights.

the executive branch has found a loophole in the constitution: not charging people with crimes if they don't have a case against them. just call them "terrorists" and then they don't have any rights.

[Edited on August 28, 2006 at 1:22 PM. Reason : .]

8/28/2006 1:21:10 PM

what rights is he being denied?

8/28/2006 1:25:22 PM

Why not let them into the country, arrest them, and give them due process?

8/28/2006 1:25:39 PM

so you want them arrested? for what? the feds just want to ask them some questions

8/28/2006 1:25:57 PM

sure. if they've done something wrong. then at least they'll get a trial.

we've already shown that we can detain "terrorists" for as long as we want without trial if we don't charge them with crimes.

and they answered their questions once. and then asked to have lawyers present for further questioning. if the fbi wanted information, why do they care if lawyers are there?

[Edited on August 28, 2006 at 1:28 PM. Reason : .]

8/28/2006 1:26:59 PM

sarijoul, what rights are they being denied?

8/28/2006 1:28:55 PM

being able to return to their home country

added:
i have a hunch they are just keeping him in pakistan in the hopes of coaxing information about his relative(s)

[Edited on August 28, 2006 at 1:30 PM. Reason : .]

8/28/2006 1:29:20 PM

please show me where that is a guaranteed right

8/28/2006 1:30:13 PM

if not guaranteed, it is certainly implied for citizens of this country.

8/28/2006 1:31:52 PM

so are they being denied any rights or aren't they?

8/28/2006 1:34:31 PM

i believe that, as american citizens, they should have the right to return the country if they so choose. so yes

[Edited on August 28, 2006 at 1:36 PM. Reason : plural]

8/28/2006 1:36:16 PM

you believe

i'm asking for where in writing are they guaranteed the right to return to their home country

cause it sounds like you're just going off your opinion and not any actual rights

8/28/2006 1:37:09 PM

I would have chalked that one up to common sense but it would be nice to see it in black and white I suppose. The following link says this:

http://www.uscis.gov/graphics/citizenship/becoming.htm
Keeping your residency. A U.S. citizen’s right to remain in the United States cannot be taken away.

I'd say that implies a few things, but it doesn't come out and say anything about returning to the country once you have left.

[Edited on August 28, 2006 at 1:45 PM. Reason : -]

8/28/2006 1:45:31 PM

^^you're right, i don't know specific laws. but i think their rights are being infringed upon. laws for situations like this have not been nailed down.

the "war on terror" has thrown lots of laws up in the air, because it's a war with an idea that can be attached to anyone the gov't decides to attach it to.

[Edited on August 28, 2006 at 1:47 PM. Reason : .]

8/28/2006 1:47:18 PM

i think its perfectly fine for the govt to question 2 men who are directly related to someone convicted of attending a terrorist training camp earlier this year...i think too many people think "omg all our freedoms are being taken away" just because the feds question a couple family members of a terrorist while letting some of the other family members proceed...do you guys think the govt put these two men on the "no-fly list" just to fuck with them?

8/28/2006 1:49:51 PM

if they really want the info, why won't they let them have lawyers?

8/28/2006 1:57:01 PM

havent we kind of figured out that they dont have to let them have lawyers?

8/28/2006 2:00:12 PM

if by "we" you mean "you"

8/28/2006 2:03:42 PM

Quote :

"you're right, i don't know specific laws"

hence the "we"

unless you can point out a right they are being denied

instead of just going off what you think

8/28/2006 2:04:44 PM

i think the written law is unclear.

if the fbi was sued for this man's reentry into the country, i think they would be allowed back in.

8/28/2006 2:09:03 PM

the written law does not exist

8/28/2006 2:09:56 PM

so my thinking his right are being denied is wrong?

can i not imply rights from the constitution?

8/28/2006 2:11:10 PM

no only the supreme court can interpret the constitution as law

8/28/2006 2:12:21 PM

Question: Are they actualy being denied access to lawyers? Or do they just need to figure out how to get their lawyer to pakistan?

8/28/2006 2:24:29 PM

it doesnt specifically say

it would help everyone if nutsmackr had actually posted a LINK TO THE STORY instead of just quoting it

8/28/2006 2:25:56 PM