Quote :

"i know that's an idealist way of looking at things"

too bad you dont know we dont live in an idealist world or deal with idealist enemies

8/29/2006 1:48:42 PM

did you read the rest of the post? you're so selective with what you respond to.

[Edited on August 29, 2006 at 1:51 PM. Reason : .]

8/29/2006 1:51:18 PM

please answer me this...wtf is so unreasonable about answer choice A:

Quote :

"imagine this...you are a US citizen like you are right now...you leave the United States in 2002 and head to Pakistan, where you live for 4 years...you decide to come back to the United States and the FBI stops you at the airport and wants to talk to you...do you: A. answer their questions...i mean come on, in the post-9/11 world you've just spent 4 years in Pakistan, a nation known to harbor terrorists...you should HOPE the FBI wants to make sure you're not up to no good B. call the ACLU to file a lawsuit, preach how your freedoms are being taken away, blame George Bush for going too fucking far this time"

8/29/2006 1:53:21 PM

couldn't you say that about any person who's being questioned by law enforcement? it's unreasonable because they are being forced to give up their right to an attorney if they want to return to their home country.

8/29/2006 2:11:48 PM

over the course of the thread i've asked you multiple times to tell me what right specifically entitles you to an attorney when you havent been charged with any crime, and you have yet to show me that right...i already explained why miranda rights (havent been arrested) and the 6th amendment (cant have a trial if you havent been charged) dont apply in this case...sounds to me like you THINK people should have the right to an attorney at all times but in reality people dont have that right

8/29/2006 2:33:28 PM

they have the right to return to their country of citizenship. people shouldn't have to be forced to admit to country of citizenship in exchange for return to their questioning if they aren't criminals.

the reason i haven't come up with any specific laws is because this an unprecedented move.

[Edited on August 29, 2006 at 2:36 PM. Reason : .]

8/29/2006 2:36:33 PM

Quote :

"they have the right to return to their country of citizenship"

they are on the no-fly list so no they DONT have that right

8/29/2006 2:41:09 PM

i'm contending that the no-fly lists (as they exist now) are in conflict with our basic rights in that they limit people's rights without disclosing why nor necessarily having a criminal record.

8/29/2006 2:43:30 PM

cry cry cry

we will continue to monitor terrorists and fight terror head on. this is a post-9/11 world now, in case you didnt know.

8/29/2006 3:28:39 PM

A+++ great rheotoric will listen to buzz-words again!!

8/29/2006 3:31:10 PM

its the truth. this is a different world than it was 10 years ago, and liberals continue to ignore that.

8/29/2006 3:32:53 PM

you've added nothing to this conversation. congratulations. good going with repeating the same tired republican rheotoric from the past 5 years.

8/29/2006 3:36:07 PM

are there any anti-terror measures that you people dont complain about?

8/29/2006 3:46:26 PM

yes

8/29/2006 3:48:01 PM

Quote :

"it's unreasonable because they are being forced to give up their right to an attorney if they want to return to their home country."

Where does it say that? Each article posted says that the Ismails canceled their appointments. I have not read where the FBI has refused to conduct interviews with a lawyer present.

8/29/2006 3:52:58 PM

If they want a lawyer to be present while they are being questioned, why hasn't the ACLU sent a lawyer to pakistan yet?

8/29/2006 3:54:08 PM

A Tanz makes a good point (that has been made repeatedly and ignored)

Did the FBI tell him they wouldn't meet with the lawyer present?

Also, if you're going to cry about the no-fly list being unconstitutional, pick a better time than suspected terrorists. Argue this point next time some 5 year old shows up on the list because his name sounds brown.

This is a pretty clear-cut case of someone who is VERY possibly a terrorist who has trained for missions being kept off a plane because that seems to be their weapon of choice lately. Bad timing to defend someone here.

8/29/2006 4:09:46 PM

then why don't they detain them?

my contention with all of this (and most of my contentions with the actions of the intelligence community) is how they have tried to act outside of the guidelines of established law so that they can avoid having to live up to the standards of the constitution and established case law.

it's like if you say the magic word "terrorist" then the executive branch becomes supremely powerful and can do anything they like. this makes me very uncomfortable and i think it's wrong.

[Edited on August 29, 2006 at 6:16 PM. Reason : .]

8/29/2006 6:12:36 PM

Quote :

"If they want a lawyer to be present while they are being questioned, why hasn't the ACLU sent a lawyer to pakistan yet? "

since they are being questioned in pakistan the same standards don't apply

Why happens in Pakistan stays in Pakistan

8/29/2006 7:11:28 PM

^i don't understand what you're trying to say.

plus: the questioning has taken place at a us embassy in pakistan (and that is where the fbi has requested questioning later)

8/29/2006 7:18:07 PM

sarijoul and nutsmackr remind me of people who dont think Barry Bonds ever used steroids just because they dont have 10 different forms of proof

8/29/2006 7:51:59 PM

huh? because i'm suspicious of the fbi?

if these people have done something wrong, then detain them, question them as necessary. if they haven't done anything wrong, they don't deserve to be kept from their country of citizenship.

8/29/2006 7:54:31 PM

nah...nothing to do with the FBI...it just seems to most people with common sense that a couple muslims who just spent 4 years in Pakistan, a known state to harbor terrorists, who are on the no-fly list, are probably on that list for a good reason and some of you are almost bending over backwards to defend them

the fact the ACLU got involved in this whole incident is pathetic, but thats another story

8/29/2006 8:04:51 PM

if it's so obvious that these people have done something, why doesn't the fbi detain them or charge them with a crime? it seems to me like they're trying to trap them into giving up their right to an attorney by never technically forcing them to be questioned, even though they are effectively doing this because they are keeping them from their homes and their family.

8/30/2006 9:16:03 AM

how many times are you gonna say the same things that have repeatedly, REPEATEDLY, been refuted in this thread?

8/30/2006 9:55:13 AM

how many times are you going to respond to them?

and what's wrong with getting the ACLU involved?

They feel their civil liberties as american citizens have been compromised. who better to talk to?

[Edited on August 30, 2006 at 9:58 AM. Reason : .]

8/30/2006 9:56:56 AM

the ACLU is a great organization if you like ambulance chasers and people who pull the race card more often than jesse jackson

and you still havent addressed my answer choice A here

Quote :

"imagine this...you are a US citizen like you are right now...you leave the United States in 2002 and head to Pakistan, where you live for 4 years...you decide to come back to the United States and the FBI stops you at the airport and wants to talk to you...do you: A. answer their questions...i mean come on, in the post-9/11 world you've just spent 4 years in Pakistan, a nation known to harbor terrorists...you should HOPE the FBI wants to make sure you're not up to no good "

8/30/2006 10:00:18 AM

Sari,

I guess detaining them is out of the question until they actually break the law. I do wonder, is attending "Blowing up Buildings 101" at Osama Camp a crime or do we have to wait for them to blow something up before we are allowed to be suspicious?

8/30/2006 10:00:38 AM

ps: 3 more people were charged in the british airplane terror plot that was foiled a couple weeks ago...arrested in britain...BRITISH CITIZENS...good thing they let them back into their home country before they arrested them for conspiracy to murder, terrorism, etc

8/30/2006 10:01:34 AM

^^apparently it is a crime, because that is what the nephew of the older guy has been convicted of. if the fbi actually had any evidence (or reasonable suspicion) that this had happened they could have already detained them.

^so your point is that they were able to keep track of them in their own country and arrest them like i said is possible?



[Edited on August 30, 2006 at 10:03 AM. Reason : .]

8/30/2006 10:02:18 AM

my point is that you're naive as shit and i'm damn glad that people like you arent in charge of our national security

if you were president after 9/11 you'd probably think the only justice for bin laden would be a drawn out trial in a court of law

theres no point for me to even try to debate this calmly and rationally anymore...but sarijoul for real...you're giving a bad name to the liberals who are sick of people saying liberals support terrorists and give terror suspects the benefit of the doubt over our own govt...cause you're breaking your back just to support these guys, whom you know NOTHING about

8/30/2006 10:04:25 AM

so in summary: ad hominem.

really i have no problem with punishing and detaining people within the confines of our established law. but acting outside of these laws to avoid affording people their constitutional rights, i'm not ok with.

[Edited on August 30, 2006 at 10:10 AM. Reason : .]

8/30/2006 10:10:19 AM

sarijoul...it doesnt matter how YOU interpret the constitution...those arent the laws...the no-fly list is legal...in this case its used for terror suspects...so in summary from you, us govt=bad, muslims suspected of terror=good

8/30/2006 10:17:15 AM

sari, do you have a constitutional right to fly on a private airplane into your own country?

You said they couldn't be denied access to their home country, but does that mean they have to be able to fly in on a private airplane? Like, if he could boat in, would you think he's having his rights denied? And it isn't the lawyer thing that denying his rights, because he hasn't been arrested.

8/30/2006 10:38:01 AM

^^the constitutionality of the current form of the no-fly lists is being taken on in the courts currently. already the fbi has lost one case dealing with them (i think it had to do with disclosing reasons why people are on the lists). and again: way to oversimplify my point. you complain about people not giving you the time of day. i have and you still revert to name-calling, oversimplification, and villification of me and my points. I LOVE TERRORISTS. YES THAT'S EXACTLY WHAT I SAID. no. i think this guy should be given due process under the law if we're going to punish him. and yes, not allowing him to fly is punishing him.

would you be ok with the government preventing you from riding on planes because a convicted terrorist named your name with no evidence in order to get a lighter sentence? the relative even said that his recollection of who was or wasn't at these camps was hazy. I say we keep an eye on this guy. sure. i have no problem with that. if he is a terrorist bent on the destruction of america, would we rather him fly into canada or mexico and cross the border that way without our knowledge? or would we prefer to escort him to america and question him in the presence of lawyers?

^i don' thtink that the right to fly is directly constitutionally guaranteed. but i think limiting one's mobility through a secret list is an abuse of executive power.

8/30/2006 11:22:15 AM

Quote :

"would you be ok with the government preventing you from riding on planes because a convicted terrorist named your name with no evidence in order to get a lighter sentence?"

yeah i'd be fine with it...its not like riding on planes is enumerated in the constitution like you claim anyway

i also wouldnt be living in pakistan attending terrorist training camps for 4 years

btw, why didnt you raise a fuss over the no-fly lists when small children turned up on it? why werent you for the "innocent until proven guilty" for the US soldiers at abu gharib? why the double standards?

Quote :

"i'm damn glad that people like you arent in charge of our national security"

8/30/2006 11:23:26 AM

Quote :

"i also wouldnt be living in pakistan attending terrorist training camps for 4 years btw, why didnt you raise a fuss over the no-fly lists when small children turned up on it? why werent you for the "innocent until proven guilty" for the US soldiers at abu gharib? why the double standards? "

we don't know AT ALL that these people were attending terrorist training camps. if we did, we could charge them.

and, yet again, you're attributing opinions to me baselessly.

8/30/2006 11:27:55 AM

and we dont know AT ALL that they are innocent

and how come the ACLU hasnt sent over a lawyer?

the fact that you think these guys have a constitutional right to fly on a commercial (private industry owned) airline in the first place is just ludicrous

you seem to have a recurring problem of interpreting your opinions and interpretations as "rights"

8/30/2006 11:29:28 AM

Quote :

"^i don' thtink that the right to fly is directly constitutionally guaranteed. but i think limiting one's mobility through a secret list is an abuse of executive power."

Limiting one's mobility from using public transportation...perhaps, but you have to allow the government some set of powers in this regard.

A list of people we know are terrorists that everyone gets to look at destroys is effectiveness.

8/30/2006 11:32:07 AM

if we knew they were terrorists, why don't we just arrest them or detain them?

also: the supreme court thinks otherwise.

[Edited on August 30, 2006 at 11:34 AM. Reason : .]

8/30/2006 11:33:57 AM

why isnt the supreme court stepping in

why doesnt the ACLU get their lawyers to pakistan

why dont we make everything thats classified or top secret for security purposes public domain so it doesnt go against your personal interpretation of the constitution?

btw which article or amendment mentions "right to fly on commercial aircraft"

8/30/2006 11:38:29 AM

did you miss when i said that i didn't think it was a direct constitutional right, but an abuse of executive power?

where in the constitution does it mention computers? cars? ballpoint pens? it doesn't matter if it's directly mentioned. its intent is what matters. and i think if taken to trial, the courts will side with the american citizen.

also: the aclu has provided them with a lawyer. the lawyer mentioned throughout (Mass is the last name i believe).

here's a different article (this time an editorial from today):

Quote :

"Of rights, risks and relocation MICHAEL FITZGERALD Record Staff Writer Published Wednesday, Aug 30, 2006 I always wondered how white Americans could have stood by during World War II and allowed authorities to drag patriotic Japanese-Americans off to relocation camps. Now I see. In wartime, such calls are not as easy as they appear in hindsight. Americans probably assumed authorities knew something civilians did not. They trusted people with badges. More on that later. The point is that the Lodi terror case is starting to have an eerie resemblance to that disgraceful historic mistake. The latest wrinkle: Federal authorities won't allow two Pakistani-Americans related to Lodi terror convict Hamid Hayat to come home from an extended stay in Pakistan until they take a lie-detector test. Muhammad Ismail, 45, and his son, Jaber Ismail, 18, are U.S. citizens. They are charged with no crime. No U.S. official publicly has alleged any wrongdoing on their part. But their constitutional rights seem to have done a Houdini. Oh, the treatment they're getting makes sense. The Ismails are, after all, implicated in the Lodi terror case. Their cousin Hamid Hayat was convicted April 25 of supporting terrorists. A jury concluded Hayat attended terrorist training camp in Pakistan in 2003 and '04. Under FBI interrogation, Hayat said several of his cousins, including Jaber, attended these camps, too. That may be what landed both Ismails on the no-fly list. Finding his way home blocked, Jaber Ismail submitted to an FBI "interview" in Islamabad. But that wasn't enough. The feds wanted to talk to him again. His dad, too. But Lodi relatives reportedly advised them that might not be such a good idea. So the Ismails refused. That looks suspicious. But consider: Hamid Hayat was convicted solely on statements he made during FBI interrogation. He later recanted. Too late. Umer Hayat, his father, cooperated with FBI agents and was charged with lying. His jury deadlocked, but he spent 11 months in jail. Maybe the Ismails are hiding something. But then, conversations with the FBI haven't gone so wonderfully for the Muslims of Lodi that they should be eager for more. They may fear if they submit to interrogation, the FBI will hang something on them by hook or by crook. A lie detector? Could you answer FBI questions without making that truth graph dance at least once? Authorities may know more than they are saying. That's the devilish dilemma of the war on terror. You have the facts in favor, the facts against and facts locked in a black box by G-men. National security authorities deserve support. But in the new, post-9/11 paradigm, these authorities are saying they often must be above scrutiny. The FBI and the State Department have provided zero explanation of their actions against the Ismails. "Trust us." I can't buy that. No matter how real the threat. It's just my opinion, but an American is loyal to rights, not to authorities, unless authorities, too, are loyal to those rights, or why the Boston Tea Party? By depriving the Ismails of their rights, law enforcement officials are saying, in effect, what kind of American belongs in our society and what kind does not. That's not a cop's place. That's the Taliban's place. Don't get me wrong. I'm not comparing U.S. officials to the Taliban. Only saying a cop's place is deciding who belongs in jail, not who belongs in America. It's a really difficult issue. But at least it casts light on those who conscienced the Japanese relocation. Fear and racism? Sure. But now we can see such ingredients are not essential. All that's needed is to be unsure, all protests paralyzed by the unknown. No need to shout for scalps; being tongue-tied will do. So we can either stand there while U.S. citizens are convicted of guilt by association and exiled or go out on an unpopular limb, defending the rights of strangers. The people with badges got the Japanese relocation tragically wrong. What have we learned? How are we better? Federal officials should charge any suspects with crimes and present their case in open court or let the Ismails come home."

http://www.recordnet.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060830/OPED0301/608300314/-1/OPED03

8/30/2006 11:48:49 AM

Quote :

"Their cousin Hamid Hayat was convicted April 25 of supporting terrorists. A jury concluded Hayat attended terrorist training camp in Pakistan in 2003 and '04. Under FBI interrogation, Hayat said several of his cousins, including Jaber, attended these camps, too. That may be what landed both Ismails on the no-fly list. "

btw...the 2 lines i just quoted are FACTS...so dont try and refute them with the writer's opinions

this thread is pointless though...you're constantly doing all you can to show how you support these people, whom you know ABSOLUTELY NOTHING about...what if they were in terrorist training camps? You say we should detain or arrest them? How can we determine if they were in camps if we don't QUESTION them? You seem to be all about constitutional rights, yet you have repeatedly suggested these people should be arrested or detained....yet you say "innocent until proven guilty"

Quote :

"i'm damn glad that people like you arent in charge of our national security"

8/30/2006 11:51:49 AM

where did the writer refute that?

oh right, you didn't read it.

8/30/2006 11:53:00 AM

Do you (sarijoul) believe that US citizens have an obligation to cooperate with law enforcement?

8/30/2006 11:55:05 AM

^

8/30/2006 11:55:10 AM

^^depends on what you mean by cooperate

8/30/2006 12:52:46 PM

how about cooperate = don't obstruct justice?

8/30/2006 12:56:51 PM

sure. i wouldn't knowingly lie to police.

8/30/2006 12:58:59 PM

so if a law enforcement agency had questions for you, that they themselves pretty much HAD to ask since they got a tip from your own relative, you would answer law enforcements' questions?

8/30/2006 1:04:36 PM