Sponsor Message:
Non Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Ashcroft Has "No Apologies" For 762 Detainees  
User currently offlineB747-437B From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Posted (11 years 3 months 3 weeks 1 day 11 hours ago) and read 1381 times:

Responding to a damning report by his own Justice Department Inspector General that painted a picture of secret arrests, torture and illegal detention of 761 persons in the latter half of 2001, US Attorney General John Aschcroft says that he "makes no apologies" for his department's conduct.

He went on to defend the actions of the INS and FBI who classified these detainees as "persons of interest" (which is the term used for those with suspected links to terrorism) despite no evidence to support that classification. Many of these have subsequently been released after over a year in detention without any charges being filed.

The Inspector General report speaks of inhuman conditions for these innocent detainees who were shackled for 23 hours a day in solitary confinement at a detention center in Brooklyn, subjected to sleep deprivation and daily strip searches as well as being frequently beaten into unconsciousness by guards.

Of a total of 762 persons acknowledged to have been detained (an unspecified number remain in secret detention), a total of 761 have been released without charges being filed. Of these, 505 (66.28%) were deported for minor immigration violations and 256 (33.86%) were found to have been in full compliance with all laws. Only 1 person (0.13%) was charged with having links to terrorism.

Joseph Billy Jr, head of the FBI's New York Anti-Terrorism office also defended the detention and torture of the innocent civilians saying that "you have to remember the tenor of the times after 9/11. New York had 3,000 people killed. We were the target. Was what we did out of the realm, considering the times we were in?".

http://www.nytimes.com/2003/06/13/national/13TERR.html

http://www.newsday.com/news/local/wire/ny-bc-ny--attacks-detainees0606jun06,0,5322429.story?coll=ny-ap-regional-wire



28 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineAlpha 1 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 1, posted (11 years 3 months 3 weeks 1 day 10 hours ago) and read 1350 times:

Joseph Billy Jr, head of the FBI's New York Anti-Terrorism office also defended the detention and torture of the innocent civilians saying that "you have to remember the tenor of the times after 9/11. New York had 3,000 people killed. We were the target. Was what we did out of the realm, considering the times we were in?".

In other words, ANYTHING is justified because of 9/11. Bush has let loose a fascist nut in John Ashcroft. He justifies what we apparently were fighting in Iraq-which is such things as secret arrests, and holding people secretly and without representation. That's Nazi or Soviet stuff, not stuff that a free nation like the U.S. should condone.

Joseph Billy, Jr, should realize that we're supposed to be better than those we're fighting, not acting in the same dark, terrible way.


User currently offlineRickster From Austria, joined Dec 2000, 653 posts, RR: 4
Reply 2, posted (11 years 3 months 3 weeks 1 day 9 hours ago) and read 1334 times:

Scary - isn`t it? The "Land of the Free" on it´s way to....where???

User currently offlinePacificjourney From New Zealand, joined Jul 2001, 2734 posts, RR: 8
Reply 3, posted (11 years 3 months 3 weeks 1 day 9 hours ago) and read 1318 times:

All is not lost.

An independant inspectorate to criticise it's own department so strongly is a healthy sign.



" Help, help ... I'm being oppressed ... "
User currently offlineAloges From Germany, joined Jan 2006, 8707 posts, RR: 43
Reply 4, posted (11 years 3 months 3 weeks 1 day 7 hours ago) and read 1291 times:

Ashcroft can't be wrong, can he? I hope he's never said that he was ordered by God to act the way he acted, since I hope many people would understand that as blasphemy.


Walk together, talk together all ye peoples of the earth. Then, and only then, shall ye have peace.
User currently offlineConfuscius From United States of America, joined Aug 2001, 3868 posts, RR: 1
Reply 5, posted (11 years 3 months 3 weeks 1 day 7 hours ago) and read 1286 times:

"Extemism in the defense of liberty is no vice. And moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue."

Sen. Barry Goldwater, (R)-AZ








The "Daisy" ad, 1964 Presidential campaign commercial.



Ain't I a stinker?
User currently offlineTravelin man From United States of America, joined Mar 2000, 3506 posts, RR: 0
Reply 6, posted (11 years 3 months 3 weeks 1 day 4 hours ago) and read 1257 times:

I swear Ashcroft is a Nazi. And I'm not using "Nazi" in a metaphorical sense, I'm using it in a literal sense. He (and by extension the man who keeps him in power, GWB) has no respect for liberty or basic human rights. He wants to EXPAND government's ability to monitor who you are, where you are, and what you do. Meanwhile, anyone who disagrees is portrayed as "unpatriotic". The "Patriot Act"? What a joke.

He may as well just goose step on the Bill of Rights. He is scary, and I cannot wait for the day that guy is no longer in power.


User currently offlineKFRG From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 7, posted (11 years 3 months 3 weeks 1 day 3 hours ago) and read 1240 times:

"He wants to EXPAND government's ability to monitor who you are, where you are, and what you do."

This statement regress us to the past. How were the 9/11 hi-jacers able to pull it all off, they went along undected, even when the Gov't knew there was a very strong chance of a major catastrophic event occuring. In today's world, for "certain" people, this statement does not fly.

-Tom


User currently offlineCba From United States of America, joined Jul 2000, 4531 posts, RR: 3
Reply 8, posted (11 years 3 months 3 weeks 23 hours ago) and read 1204 times:

Bush ran on a platform advertising smaller government, and less federal interference. In fact, the government has grown more in size under him than any other president. The lies keep coming...

User currently offlineCicadajet From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 9, posted (11 years 3 months 3 weeks 22 hours ago) and read 1185 times:

What are "minor immigration violations"?

IF these folks were not in the US legally, it is fine that they are deported. And, in fact, they were "guilty" of those violations (at the least).

Its unfortunate, but I don't believe abuses in cases of incarceration are rare anywhere.

There is a burden of proof... Likely many of these detainees were/are terrorist sympathizers. And if they were openly so, in the days following "911" and celebratory in their behavior in front of their jailers, I am not at all surprised they were mistreated.

This is not a theoretical debate..The US Govt is trying to prevent a nuclear incident on its territory. Everyone said the sky was falling when the RICO laws were passed as well.





User currently offlinePacificjourney From New Zealand, joined Jul 2001, 2734 posts, RR: 8
Reply 10, posted (11 years 3 months 3 weeks 21 hours ago) and read 1174 times:

Cicadajet I'm not sure where to begin with your post.

1-

How do you know these guys were guilty of anything, including immigration infractions. Even those charges need to be presented publicly for deportation. Do you just believe everything you are told, lord knows the US government never lies.

2 -

"but I don't believe abuses in cases of incarceration are rare anywhere". So what ? You aren't as bad as Myanmar ? Congratualtions.

3 -
"Likely many of these detainees were/are terrorist sympathizers."

Likely ? Why, how do you know this ? Because you were told it is true.

"celebratory in their behavior in front of their jailers, I am not at all surprised they were mistreated."

Firstly how do you know they were behaving this way and secondly even if they were it does not permit beating of prisoners. Those doing the beating are nothing but cowards picking on those who cannot fight back.

4 - So your government is trying to prevent a "nuclear incident". Incident by whom, who is threatening you with nukes ? You can't be that stupid surely.





" Help, help ... I'm being oppressed ... "
User currently offlineCicadajet From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 11, posted (11 years 3 months 3 weeks 20 hours ago) and read 1164 times:

Honestly, I don't mind being called stupid in the Non-Av forum.  Smile/happy/getting dizzy

As it happens, NEST was actively searching NY for Nukes in the wake of 911.
And W-DC as well. The concern would be that Islamic fascists had gotten hold of a device. Tax dollars well spent in this instance.

If in fact, Al Queda and company do not possess any actual nukes at this time, it is to the best that those aiding the terrorists via money, providing comfort, conspiring to fly aircraft into buildings/nuclear plants or spread small pox, preaching "Death to America" etc, are removed.

I don't of course, know that those held against their will in this case were guilty of immigration violations..but I was going by the report referenced above. For that matter, I don't know that they were mistreated either.. its the same source; do you wish to pick and choose your "facts"?

They were held as a matter of national security, and apparently they can be deported. Should all surveillance of terrorists plotting massive casualties be compromised in the trial of these folks? I think not.. The stakes are too high.

Have you seen the reports of OBL's "poll #s" worldwide? He is quite popular with an extraordinary number of people.

And just anecdotally, I can tell you this includes many people that are apparently not considered "persons of interest" and live in New York. And, too, there were a good number of instances of persons in the New York/New Jersey area that celebrated 911. So, no, I am not surprised when I read reports of a relatively small (tiny actually) number of "persons of interest" being detained.

What is to be gained from Ashcroft and company knowingly rounding up absolutely the wrong people? Its obvious it would start a political firestorm of civil liberties in general and inflame ethnic fears of government abuse of their rights in particular.

If you check Ashcroft's record prior to his term in the Bush Administration, while you may find a very conservative viewpoint, I don't believe you will see a penchant for spying on the public and the concerns we see today. I believe these issues we see now are based on the realities and/or fears resulting from 911.

And, no, of course it is not "ok" or "right" for prisoners to be abused. But that has nothing to do with whether these "persons of interest" should or should not have been rounded up, so I think it is largely irrelevant in this instance.

While I may disagree with you on this issue, it shouldn't be necessary to believe I am a mindless dupe who believes everything the US Govt has ever declared.


User currently offlinePacificjourney From New Zealand, joined Jul 2001, 2734 posts, RR: 8
Reply 12, posted (11 years 3 months 3 weeks 19 hours ago) and read 1159 times:

I'm not choosing any facts. The point being we don't know the facts because it's all "secret".

Anyway isn't the prosecution's job to prove guilt not the accuseds' to prove innocence.

So what they searched for Nukes ? Total paranoia. And they found what exactly ....

I don't live their so of course it's really none of my business or problem but are you really happy with such a bungled over-reaction. Perhaps if it was you or yours who were of interest you may feel differently.

Easy to be hard headed about these things when it's about "them".



" Help, help ... I'm being oppressed ... "
User currently offlineAlpha 1 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 13, posted (11 years 3 months 3 weeks 19 hours ago) and read 1156 times:

While I may disagree with you on this issue, it shouldn't be necessary to believe I am a mindless dupe who believes everything the US Govt has ever declared.

Your words speak of the total opposite, sadly.

Ashcroft has built himself a nice little dictatorship over Justice, and he honestly thinks he can-and should-just be able to hold anyone at will, without giving them due process.

Isn't that supposedly one of the things we fought against in Iraq?


User currently offlineB747-437B From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 14, posted (11 years 3 months 3 weeks 18 hours ago) and read 1151 times:

IF these folks were not in the US legally, it is fine that they are deported. And, in fact, they were "guilty" of those violations (at the least)

In the majority of the deportation cases though, they were NOT guilty at the time of being arrested but subsequently BECAME guilty as a result of their incarceration.

A tourist entering on a standard B2 visa is usually granted 6 months entry into the United States. Assume he is arrested after 3 months and then held in custody for 12 months. During this period of time, he crosses his 6 months entry clearance and becomes "illegal" in the United States, despite the fact that he is in jail and is unable to leave. Hence, when you hold a foreign national long enough his "guilt" becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy. Similarly with a student who is thrown in jail for a year. He is unable to attend classes during that year and is hence "guilty" of violating the terms of his visa. A big chunk of the deportees were finally removed under these circumstances for lack of anything else. Those who were cleared and allowed to remain in the US were mainly permanent residents and others with more open-ended statuses.

But hey, at least they are "guilty" of these violations so its ok to beat them up now.


User currently offlineCicadajet From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 15, posted (11 years 3 months 3 weeks 18 hours ago) and read 1145 times:

cba:
Most, if not All the recent administrations have promised or implied a greater limitation of government, so it is not a remarkable circumstance when it comes to Bush.

The nature of the beast is that it keeps growing. The Government actually grew under all of Ronald Reagan's cuts... he cut the rate of increase at best, and he certainly increased defense spending. We have a vague majority of the voting populace that wants to hear about cutting the govt back..but they also want government all over the place at the same time. Hence we get the politicians that we do. (Although to be sure there are *some* voters that clearly want more or less govt.) All the administrations work with Congress on these matters. They can't just create a budget on their own. Whether it is a good idea or not, you can't say the Administration would have foreseen the need of a Homeland Security branch prior to 911 when they were campaigning for office.

Rickster: There wont be a "land of the free" without being able to defend it from within. Bear in mind the last place spotters went to jail was in Europe.

Pacific:

Well of course, if I were to find myself on the wrong end of a miscarriage of justice I would not be happy. Certainly I would not be happy either if I was a kid on David Koresh's ranch, or a Japanese American during World War 2 (to pick a couple of events unconnected to Ashcroft and Bush and Republican Administrations). That goes without saying.

But thats beside the point. Unless perhaps the point is simply to imply a "racist" or "reactionary" us against "THEM" and confuse the USA with Nazi Germany. (a daily ritual on these forums it seems). The current Administration, by referring to "evil doers" and "terror-ISTs" is one example of going to extreme lengths to avoid clearly identifying the opponents lest the wrong message be sent. (ie: Blaming "THEM")

Never-the-less a plausible reason was given as to why trials were not acceptable in this case. You may of course disagree and I actually understand your concerns.

There is however, another point of view. The stakes are very high.

I am reminded of a column by Thomas Sowell where he points out there are examples of situations where totally happy outcomes are not in the offing. Such as leaving people behind when there is not enough room in the lifeboat, or isolating people when they have been infected with a deadly disease for which there is not a known cure. And again, these examples are of real innocence, not just the legal sense. All the more tragic.

Of course if you don't believe the stakes are very high, its an easy call for you.

Alpha1: I had/have some reservations about the conflict with Iraq, which you may not believe since apparently my not falling into lock-step with consensus on this thread has led you to believe I am blindly following and supporting the current administration on all matters.

Sure enough, we don't yet see any WMD in Iraq. I am somewhat skeptical of them being there in the first place since according to one report, (New York Times I think), the Administration was weighing an attack on Iraq in the first week of the aftermath of 911 if it could conjure the justification.

On the matter of Homeland security however, "911" is all the proof I require along with the proclamations of Al Quida itself to know there is a real concern.

...(now perhaps there's a Nazi reference for you... when did Americans start referring to America as the "Homeland"? Has that ever happened before?
I've heard this language questioned before. but anyway...I'll need more than that to convince me.. )


User currently offlineCicadajet From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 16, posted (11 years 3 months 3 weeks 18 hours ago) and read 1143 times:

B747-437B, where exactly does it say that bit about the people being deported due to time elapsed while they are being held?

Is that in the Times' piece somewhere? I didn't see it.



User currently offlineB747-437B From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 17, posted (11 years 3 months 3 weeks 17 hours ago) and read 1138 times:

where exactly does it say that bit about the people being deported due to time elapsed while they are being held?

It's not in this article but it was among the footnotes of the Inspector General's report (in the footnotes because the new Bureau of Citizenship Services is no longer part of DOJ but rather DHS). There was an hour long documentary on one of the Asian news channels this week (I think it was Channel NewsAsia out of Singapore) that addressed this issue.


User currently offlineCicadajet From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 18, posted (11 years 3 months 3 weeks 17 hours ago) and read 1129 times:

Thanks for the info B74....

If, upon review, the Govt considered these people a danger or otherwise reasonably undesirable/hostile, but merely used the lapse of terms as an excuse, either because it could not "prove" the case, or did not think it prudent to do so...we're back to the original issue.

If however, the govt. did not suspect those in question of any ill-intent towards the USA after review...but then deported them solely on the grounds of expiration of terms that were beyond the detainees control, then of course that is a monstrous injustice any way you look at it; I agree.



User currently offlineConfuscius From United States of America, joined Aug 2001, 3868 posts, RR: 1
Reply 19, posted (11 years 3 months 3 weeks 11 hours ago) and read 1101 times:

>>>Likely many of these detainees were/are terrorist sympathizers<<<


"Round up the usual suspects!"

- Captain Louis Renault (Claude Rains), "Casablanca".




Ain't I a stinker?
User currently offlineFlyboy36y From United States of America, joined Mar 2000, 3039 posts, RR: 7
Reply 20, posted (11 years 3 months 2 weeks 6 days 6 hours ago) and read 1057 times:

REMEMBER THEM?



I THOUGHT WE WERE SUPPOSED TO BE....BETTER

GUESS NOT.


User currently offlineCicadajet From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 21, posted (11 years 3 months 2 weeks 5 days 23 hours ago) and read 1032 times:

Mass murders equated with rounding up 300 people in a country of 200 million..resulting in *some* being deported.

The Drama of Non-Av lives on.




User currently offlineAlpha 1 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 22, posted (11 years 3 months 2 weeks 5 days 21 hours ago) and read 1020 times:

Cicadjet, Ashcroft may not be a mass murderer, but he's a little tyrant nonetheless. He's taken, into his own hands, the power to free someone, or keep them incarcerated-without any charges being brought against them. He has that power. That's a power that only dictators posess.

This guy is a nutcase, pure and simple. He's a dangerous man in a position of much power, and Bush would gain a little more respect in my eyes if he would jettison this nut.

Anyway, how good can someone who lost an election to a dead man be?


User currently offlineCicadajet From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 23, posted (11 years 3 months 2 weeks 5 days 18 hours ago) and read 1007 times:

Alpha1, I thought the last cadaver to run was Dole -- against Clinton.  Smile

There is nothing to suggest Ashcroft is a "nutcase"; but I'd be happy to have him replaced with Guiliani if neccesary.  Smile

Al Queda is operating within US Borders. The govt found 300 "people of interest" (out of millions that could have fit some hapless profile if such power was being abused) and did something about it.. This is far better than all the past instances of such people being "watched" for months, by the FBI, CIA etc. and then lost...and suddenly those people take action - or help others to do so.

Read the latest Newsweek to gain some insight into the tactics being employed to break these radical muslim conspirators.

Curious though... do you consider Roosevelt to have been a dangerous man.. a "nutcase, pure and simple"? That president put much greater numbers of people into "camps" - based on nothing more than their ethnicity. And, there is not even a direct comparison as in WW2, the Continental US was NOT attacked..the attack on Pearl Harbor was against a military installation ..and it was performed by enemy soldiers..and not these sinister barbarians within our midst passing themselves off as "students" or whatever the case may be.

This is a new situation... Not a game lawyering in the courtroom or debating abstract issues at a University. The goal is to prevent a serious disaster.



User currently offlineSjc>sfo From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 24, posted (11 years 3 months 2 weeks 5 days 17 hours ago) and read 997 times:

Neither do I.




-----------


25 DAVID B. : Anyone who likes or agrees with adolf should take one good look at themselves.
26 Charleslp : I just hope that Ashcroft never makes his way into the Presidential Office
27 Travelin man : I love that since it was "only" a few hundred people that got their rights trampled on, that somehow it is no big deal. Yup... thank goodness we're wh
28 Flyboy36y : Curious though... do you consider Roosevelt to have been a dangerous man.. a "nutcase, pure and simple"? That president put much greater numbers of pe
Top Of Page
Forum Index

This topic is archived and can not be replied to any more.

Printer friendly format

Similar topics:More similar topics...
EU Constitution:What If France Says "No"? posted Thu May 26 2005 09:07:50 by RootsAir
I Called The Police... "No. Nothing For Us". posted Sat Nov 6 2004 00:12:11 by Bofredrik
The Perfect "Gift" For Christmas posted Tue Nov 14 2006 23:47:59 by Falcon84
Pelosi: "Dems Not Out For Revenge" posted Thu Nov 9 2006 14:17:29 by LHMARK
What Part Of "No Entry" Don't People Understand? posted Mon Oct 30 2006 07:50:09 by AsstChiefMark
Hurray "Rhaa" Has Made It To American Press posted Sun Oct 29 2006 06:30:25 by Runway23
U.S. Sailor Arrested For "Espionage" For Russia posted Wed Aug 9 2006 21:37:30 by AerospaceFan
Does Hugo Chavez Have "Takeover" Plan For Southern posted Tue Apr 4 2006 15:57:50 by Mrmeangenes
Some "Passion" Tips For Skidmarks posted Thu Mar 30 2006 19:19:56 by Cosec59
"Birthright Citizenship" Could Be Gone For Some! posted Tue Dec 27 2005 05:18:28 by DeltaFFinDFW