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

MSNBC ^

[carenot]

Her eminence looks very pruny, and we could hope she will continue to dry up and eventually blow away. Dumb c__T. Title IX strikes again.

Yeah, Traficant has a funny wig and his Momma dresses him funny.

I got it! If a person is ugly they are WRONG! Especially if they are old.

[terilyn]

And, she's the judge that ruled NOT to seat Bush's appointee to the Civil Rights Commission.

Notice a pattern here?

[AmishDude]

Yeah, where's the part about releasing the names? Putting aside the issue of whether or not this is a criminal prosecution, the judge is not dealing with any of the specifics of the sixth amendment. In particular, she isn't demanding counsel be assigned.

[CharacterCounts]

I wonder, in Judge Kessler's eyes, if there is any situation in which she'd allow 7A, 7C & 7F to apply. Wartime doesn't count, it seems.

Probably when there is a request from the Senate Ethics Commitee for the Torrecilli documents.

[exodus]

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

To: exodus
You're right, Exodus, I haven't read the Patriot Act, and I should. I basically trust Bush and Ashcroft and know they are not out to turn this nation into a tyranny. But since the law will be around after they leave, I should become familiar with it, and it can be (and is being) challenged in court. I also know Kessler is a liberal freak judge and she ruled in this case under the Freedom of Information Act, not any U.S. Constitutional claim.
# 100 by tomahawk
*************************

It’s hard reading, mostly because it refers to “as defined in sec.4352, part B, subsection 435” several times. I ranted from ignorance for several days, but once I read it, I realized that everything I feared was true.

The Patriot Act allows :

1) physical searches without a warrant
2) wiretaps of telephones without a warrant
3) surveillance of internet activity without a warrant
4) Grand Jury information to be shared among government and foreign agencies
5) information on citizens to be shared among government and foreign agencies
6) DNA markers to be taken from anyone accused of committing or considering a violent act
7) full access to our financial and banking records.
8) full access to our educational records

"Violence" has been re-defined as any act that uses, attempts to use, threatens to use, or has the potential of becoming violent.

"Terrorism" has been re-defined to mean any act of violence, any intention to commit violence, any activity that would threaten or coerce others to change their activities, any intention to threaten or coerce others to change their activities, any crime committed with the use of a computer, any racketeering activity, and any act that interferes with interstate or international commerce.

Since local and state commerce are already known to be defined as "interstate" by the federal government because of the drug "war," any crime that effects commerce is terrorism.

Any crime, no matter how simple, can now be defined as terrorism, so the special laws enacted against terrorists apply to any crime. Thus, a man who defrauds his company is a terrorist.

A protester outside of an abortion clinic is a terrorist, guilty of the crime of intimidating, or trying to intimidate, people into changing their behavior. A pimp with his stable of women is a racketeer, involved in illegal business activities, and so too is classified as a terrorist.

A drug dealer is also involved in illegal business, as is his customer, who at the least is guilty of aiding terrorism through buying the illegal product of the drug dealer. The television commercials aren't just advertising. Drug buyers are now legally defined as terrorist supporters under the Patriot act.

Any terrorist, or supporter of terrorism, is subject to secret arrest, without a trial, without a lawyer, and without even notifying his family. Any person arrested under the terrorism statutes can be held indefinitely, without charges ever being filed.

In addition, the Patriot Act provides for sharing all law enforcement data among Federal, State, and Local police, and for co-ordination of response to any act of terrorism.

The Patriot Act creates to a Federal police force, with Local and State branches. It is a police force with the power to investigate crime both inside and outside the country, and unlimited access to all of our public and private information. It is a police force that doesn't have to explain it's actions.

Here's some quotes from the Patriot act :

"...Coordination of Federal, State, and local terrorism research, preparedness, and response programs must be improved..."

"...Private business, government, and the national security apparatus increasingly depend on an interdependent network of critical physical and information infrastructures, including telecommunications, energy, financial services, water, and transportation sectors..."

"...The support provided under paragraph (1) shall include the following :

"...(B) Acquisition from State and local governments and the private sector of data necessary to create and maintain models of such systems and of critical infrastructures generally..."

[carenot]

Well, I don't know a Joe except a nephew that burned to death a long time ago.

Tell me who Joe is and his address.

If you don't know it who are you talking about?

Anyway what was the bet? I don't remember agreeing to it.

[mrsmith]

From the ruling:

"The Government has emphasized that the detainees are entitled to inform whomever they want of their detention."

I think you'll find that this ruling, even if not appealed, will not result in the disclosure of any names.

.. except of the lawyers representing them.
That's one of the things the FOIA suit asks for- the names of their lawyers. I wonder why that is of so much interest to these people?

[AmishDude]

Actually, I guess Al Qaeda works in cels so that an operative only knows his contact. That way, the network can only be traced so far up the chain of command. Even then, some of these people may have lost contact with Al Qaeda and some may be sleepers who are ready only for a specific event in order to strike, so they know nothing of current activities of the organization.

[Looking for Diogenes]

She lists a lot of arguments, but I didn't see that one among them. Her main argument, which is fairly obvious, is that their terrorist conspirators already know they are detained.

Gee, even some peope here have pointed that out.

She does allow the government to keep secret the "dates and locations of arrest, detention and release." What are subject to release are the names of the detainees and the names of their lawyers.

[carenot]

Kessler ruled that the government’s rationale for keeping the names secret was insufficient. She said the government’s argument that terrorists in other nations might map the progress of U.S. investigators by determining who had been captured was illogical.

I reckon that the terrorists know if any of their's is in custody.

Who doesn't know is their familys.

I wonder how many have missing persons reports on them?

[CharacterCounts]

I got it! If a person is ugly they are WRONG! Especially if they are old.

I dunno, your'e probably not ugly or old... but you sure are wrong.

[carenot]

That's one of the things the FOIA suit asks for- the names of their lawyers. I wonder why that is of so much interest to these people?

Might be that they have read as I have that they don't have any lawyers.

[carenot]

I dunno, your'e probably not ugly or old... but you sure are wrong.

Boy! Are you wrong.

[mrsmith]

I've also read that they do.

I guess we'll just be spending a little tax money guarding their lawyers now.

[FreeTheHostages]

They care about the names of the lawyers because, if they contact those lawyers, they can thereby find the names of the prisoners.

I repeat my post from an identical thread on this subject. How was it established that a terrorist might wish his or her name witheld for privacy?

According to Judge Kessler? is supposed to ask them!! LOL!!! Perhaps DOJ should serve them tea, too. There's more on all this and how she ruled on a ridiculous FOIA theory (she said Section 7 doesn't apply: this is a *textbook* case for Section 7 exemption). She fancies herself a big privacy expert, even though Judge Kessler was overruled in a fairly famous privacy case. Got a minute? Sit back and hear about this nitwit ruling:

She ruled that a Smithsonian employee, one Margaret Dong (a screw-up who was busy suing her employer for a bunch of stuff, which is ridiculous, Smithsonian is the best employer in town) was entitled to file a lawsuit against her employer for violation of privacy. The violation? Her employer, suspecting that Ms. Dong had without the Smithsonian's knowledge taken a Monet on a little trip to Europe with the MOMA museum of New York!! And the violation of privacy? The horrified Smithsonian officials *dared* to call the MOMA officials in NYC to see if this rumor was actually true. It was!! Although the Monet returned safe and sound, they of course disciplined Ms. Dong. She agreed she'd done wrong. But then she turned around sued the Smithsonian, saying it was a violation of priavcy not to check with *her* first rather than calling the MOMA museum officials to see if she had committed wrong. Judge Kessler was reversed. But one really had to wonder what she was thinking. She wrote something emotional in her decision like "Now Smithsonian employees will never have to worry about their privacy being violated like this." I can't remember the words. But it was something pretty stupid.

She's been reversed with remarkable frequency for a new appointee. She's kinda a laughing stock in the bar. Lawyers of all political stripes are careful to water down their arguments before her: she thinks she's smart, but she's not following stuff well. Actually, due to her idiocy, she's not that dangerous an ideologue. You want someone who could do serious damage on the bench, I give you Judge Friedman: very left and very very smart, a crafty politico. Judge Kessler can't do much damage except keep the D.C. Circuit busy reversing her.

[jwalsh07]

She lists a lot of arguments, but I didn't see that one among them. Her main argument, which is fairly obvious, is that their terrorist conspirators already know they are detained.

Gee, even some peope here have pointed that out.

Well, Diogenes, chew on this. Suppose there are 100 material witnesses and 90 of them are in custody. What do you suppose the other ten might be doing?

In your search for an honest man, see if you can find a liberal Judge with an ounce of common sense.

[CharacterCounts]

Boy! Are you wrong.

I know! But I didn't want to imply you were ugly and old.

[exodus]

To: exodus
Exodus, Carenot, etc., I don't like tyranny either and have no desire to live under one, and if you're concerned about the potential dangers that could be posed with these new laws if someone who has a tyrannical streak in him (or her, in Hillary's case), I don't have a problem with that. But, and it's a big but, I don't believe there is a constitutional or legal principle that provides that foreign nationals who have been picked up on immigration violations or conspiracy to commit terrorist acts must have their names published, while the investigation is ongoing.
# 109 by tomahawk

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

This is not about foreign nationals; this is about our freedom. The secret trials were not limited to “foreign” terrorists. Anyone classified as a "terrorist" is subject to secret trial, and "terrorist" has been given a new, very loose definition.

If this were about foreign nationals, I would be complaining about the secrecy still. Secret trials are not part of a free, just society.

[jwalsh07]

You were about to make a donation to FR based on the fact that you keep insisting that the detainnees had no contact with lawyers. Joe is the guy who you send the donations too.

You really didn't know that?

[jwalsh07]

If this were about foreign nationals, I would be complaining about the secrecy still. Secret trials are not part of a free, just society.

Well, you can quit complaining then, there haven't been any.