Judge orders names of all detainees in 9/11 probe released

MSNBC ^

[tomahawk]

I powerskimmed it.

[carenot]

Problem with the VIth Amendment cite is that the esteemed Judge Kessler (NOT) didn't cite it, much as you wish she did.

I never thought or read that she even knows about the 6th, doesn't matter.

She is right on this one.

Ashcroft is wrong.

[jwalsh07]

[Washington Post - 11/27/01] Attorney General John D. Ashcroft yesterday defended his refusal to release the names of hundreds of people detained in connection with the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks, saying that doing so would create "a public blacklist" that would violate the detainees' privacy rights.

Ashcroft also said that such a list could help Osama bin Laden, though he did not explain how.

"The law properly prevents the department from creating a public blacklist of detainees that would violate their rights," Ashcroft said at a news conference, adding that none of those detained has been denied access to a lawyer. "They are not being held in secret," he said.

WHOOPS.

[Catspaw]

Here's a list of the plaintiffs. Some familiar names are on this list:

1 Plaintiffs are the Center for National Security Studies, American Civil Liberties Union, Electronic Privacy Information Center, American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee, American Immigration Law Foundation, American Immigration Lawyers Association, Amnesty International USA, Arab-American Institute, Asian-American Legal Defense and Education Fund, Center for Constitutional Rights, Center for Democracy and Technology, Council on American Islamic Relations, First Amendment Foundation, Human Rights Watch, Multiracial Activist, Nation Magazine, National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers, National Black Police Association, Inc., Partnership for Civil Justice, Inc., People for the American Way Foundation, Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press, and the World Organization Against Torture USA.

[exodus]

To: exodus
You misunderstand me at least.
The releasing of names will impede current investigations.

The Saudi Islamic Lobby, their Fronts in the US, like CAIR, AMC etc will jump on this chance to sue the government…”
# 97 posted on 8/2/02 7:14 PM Central by swarthyguy

*************************

In time of “war?”
What court would agree to hear the case if the danger was real?

In ordinary crime solving, secrecy might help the authorities. Criminals don’t usually make a point of telling other criminals what they’re up to. A terrorist organization, on the other hand, needs to know if their organization has been compromised. They are going to know that something’s wrong as soon as their man stops contacting them.

I don’t advocate publicizing every arrest for terrorism, swarthyguy. I don’t want the newspapers and cable companies telling the world who we’ve arrested. However, if someone comes in and says, “I can’t find my husband!” the time for secrecy is past. If the man is innocent, telling his wife that you’ve arrested him won’t hurt. If the man is guilty, the terrorist organization will assume that their operative has been taken, and that he told everything he knows.

Admitting that you’ve arrested someone doesn’t hurt anything. Trying to keep the arrest secret doesn’t help any investigation. “Night and Fog” tactics does nothing except promote fear of the government.

[jwalsh07]

However, if someone comes in and says, “I can’t find my husband!”

You think their lawyer forgot to tell the wife his client was in the hoosegow? Where do you guys get this crap?

[sinkspur]

The two of you ought to Kumbaya yourselves over to CAIR.

You're also clueless; the Justice Department can tie this up for the next two years, if it wants to, with appeals.

And, it wants to.

[exodus]

"What if that innocent Pakistani had disappeared? "
- exodus

To: exodus
He did for a few weeks and then he was back.
His family; absolutely nothing.
# 99 by swarthyguy
*************************

The Pakistani man didn’t have a family,
or they didn’t care that he and his paycheck disappeared for several weeks?

[swarthyguy]

Indefinitely. Until they convince the interrogators they were just out for a picnic and were only studing the koran.

[carenot]

I disagree with Ashcroft.

[tomahawk]

That makes me feel warm and fuzzy. Thanks.

[swarthyguy]

This kid's family was in Pakistan. He was held incommunicado. He understood perfectly why he had been caught in the dragnet. And we joked about how much worse it would have been if he had been picked up in Pakistan itself. He shrugged it off and blamed the jihadis not the USG.

[tomahawk]

A veritable Who's Who of organizations out to destroy America and/or Islamicize the world.

[Looking for Diogenes]

She overroad them because she disagreed with what they did, and constructed a faulty legal basis to justify her ruling.

I powerskimmed it.

And so can you tell us exactly what the faulty legal basis is?

[carenot]

Hey, sinkspur!

How are you? I hope everything is well for you and yours.

[tomahawk]

The part about the Freedom of Information Act requiring that DOJ provide the names of the detainees to the "public interest" organizations that asked for them. In other words, the entire holding of the case.

[swarthyguy]

"“Night and Fog” tactics does nothing except promote fear of the government.
"

Exactly. And we need to put the that fear into the interlopers in this country who would do us harm.

[Teacher317]

Thanks. I thought I was the only one who noticed. It's stunning how much we're desperate to give away even though this "war" we're in rarely is even newsworthy... other than to mention the latest new way we can "give the authorities the power to ____" with total impunity.

[Looking for Diogenes]

And on what legal grounds was that an error?

[Teacher317]

What?!?! Where do I find the details on that one???