] The appeals court disagreed, noting that ``in the wake of
] a mass atrocity and in the midst of an investigation that
] galvanized the nation, Awadallah did not step forward to
] share information he had about one or more of the
] hijackers.''
]
] Awadallah's failure to come forward established probable
] cause for his arrest, the court ruled. The FBI found
] Awadallah after his phone number was discovered in a
] hijacker's car.

You do NOT have the right to remain silent.

Someone wrote:
] Huh?

I promise I can build a comprehensive argument that a policy of sending trouble makers to people who engage in torture is a violation of several treaties on human rights, and if it involves American citizens is directly unconstitutional. Furthermore, there are few things which can be more offensive to our ideal of civil liberties then a policy such as this.

The thing that makes this case so stark is that we aren't even talking about a trouble maker. We're (as far as I've been able to tell) talking about a guy who once got someone that we suspect of being linked to troublemakers to cosign on a lease. Thats all that it seems like they had on him.

Should we investigate that? Yes. Should we have done it this way? No. This is not an investigation, this is sending someone to die a prolonged and horrible death at the hands of people who will not and cannot provide us with useful information (how do you trust the government of Syria to report clearly to you on their interrogation?) simply because it creates an atmosphere of fear.

In the United States we do not employ torture because it is cruel and unusual. Because it violates the very essence of our Constitution. In the United States we have due process because when we do punish people they ought to actually be guilty. This case is an absolutely perfect example of why you have due process. Because if you don't have due process you harm innocent people. When your system of justice meters out punishments arbitrarily upon the innocent it is no different in its effects then the criminals it intends to control!

Now it is not at all clear that such an executive order exists, and if it exists it is not at all clear that it applies to U.S. citizens. People, recently in particular, are fond of making the case that the constitution does not apply to citizens of other countries. There are obviously limits to that argument. How can you build a nation based on the ideas about rights, about equality, about the pursuit of happiness, while simultaneously engaging in, for example, the ethnic cleansing of a people? The fact is that you cannot. The fact is that it is possible to engage it activity which is so far beyond the pale, so completely malicious to the values that our system of government is supposed to uphold, that it is impossible for any thinking person, and indeed any court of law, to stomach the argument that one can engage in such an activity legally as long as the victims don't have green cards.

A formal administration policy which orders our border police to hand people, on the slightest suspicion, over to a government with which we do not maintain any kind of regular relations, such that they may be tortured to death, for no other reason then to spread fear, in particular when so many other options exist, is just such a policy.

I pray that when, and if, the truth comes to light here, that it does not remotely resemble the situation which I have just described.

] Unidentified officials told the Washington Post the case
] apparently occurred under a secret presidential "finding"
] that allows the CIA to send suspects to other nations
] without due process to allow those countries to obtain
] information by torture.

To sign such an order is highly illegal and probably grounds for impeachment.

Bush Administration policy directly connected to torture case?

] "If this is the case, it is not only a violation of both
] domestic and international law but it reveals the
] willingness of U.S. officials to trample on the most
] fundamental principles of due process and human rights in
] their scorched-earth approach to counterterrorism," Watt
] said.

Even Fox News is roasting USG on this one.

FOXNews.com - Top Stories - Detained Deportee Tells of Torture in Syria

Thought this one was particularly apropo for this group.

WorkingForChange-This Modern World: Something Truly Terrifying

CDT's fact for fact response to the DOJ's pro-PATRIOT Act website.

Setting the Record Straight: An Analysis of the Justice Department's PATRIOT Act Website October 27, 2003

] Security is always a trade-off: How much security am I
] getting, and what am I giving up to get it? These
] "data-mining" programs are not very effective.
] Identifiable future terrorists are rare, and innocents
] are common. No matter what patterns you're looking for,
] far more innocents will match the patterns than
] terrorists because innocents vastly outnumber terrorists.
] So many that you might as well not bother. And that
] assumes that you even can predict terrorist patterns.

Schneier takes an admittedly unacademic swipe at TIA/CAPPS programs. Basically the idea is that profiling doesn't work regardless of how much data you are looking at. Proving this, unfortunately, requires a TIA project.

Newsday.com - Terror Profiles By Computers Are Ineffective

] The Christian priesthood, finding the doctrines of Christ
] leveled to every understanding and too plain to need
] explanation, saw, in the mysticisms of Plato, materials with
] which they might build up an artificial system which might,
] from its indistinctness, admit everlasting controversy, give
] employment for their order, and introduce it to profit, power,
] and pre-eminence. The doctrines which flowed from the lips
] of Jesus himself are within the comprehension of a child; but
] thousands of volumes have not yet explained the Platonisms
] engrafted on them: and for this obvious reason that nonsense
] can never be explained." -Thomas Jefferson

A very interesting and angry discussion on Slashdot about the Pledge case. Thought I'd bring it over here and see what people have to say. CNN's take is rather propagandist. In general, I find this subject to be messy. I think its obvious why the words "under god" have been added to the pledge, and I think its obvious that it was illegal to do it. However, three generations have now been raised bleating those words out every morning in a practice that I objected to as a child simply because it is the most obvious sort of brainwashing. Those people are no more likely to be able to look critically and rationally upon the words of their pledge then a Frenchman is to discard his native tongue. Could we not start by having schools which do not include these words in the pledge, or better yet, to not pledge at all? Does it make sense to confront America with its most ingrained irrational convictions directly? Is this going to be productive?

Slashdot | Supreme Court Will Hear Pledge of Allegiance Case

] The First Ten Amendments to the constitution of the
] United States printed on sturdy, pocket-sized, pieces of
] metal.
]
] The next time you travel by air, take the Security
] Edition of the Bill of Rights along with you. When asked
] to empty your pockets, proudly toss the Bill of Rights in
] the plastic bin.

Wow...

Bill of Rights - Security Edition

] In his 2 1/2 years in office, Attorney General John
] Ashcroft has earned himself a remarkable distinction as
] the Torquemada of American law. Tomas de Torquemada was
] the 15th century Dominican friar who became the grand
] inquisitor of the Spanish Inquisition. He was largely
] responsible for its methods, including torture and the
] burning of heretics - Muslims in particular.

DenverPost.com - Walter Cronkite on the DOJ