Does anyone else have a problem with this?

[Jenny_Jackson]

I was brought up to believe the U.S. was a country of laws. Laws are open to the public. Laws and trials are open for discussion and scruteny. Laws are NOT held behind closed doors. Prisoners are NOT spirited away to secret prisons and tried in some back room.

What the hell?


http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/22726207/

Secret terrorist sentenced to life in embassy plot
Jabarah, who pleaded guilty to charges in 2002, to emerge from shadows

NEW YORK - A Canadian terrorist who briefly became an informant against top al-Qaida leaders was sentenced to life in prison Friday for plotting to blow up American embassies in Singapore and the Philippines.

A federal judge in Manhattan imposed the sentence after listening to a 20-minute speech from admitted terrorist Mohammed Mansour Jabarah, in which he repudiated violence and asked to be allowed to go home to his family.

Jabarah has been in U.S. custody since 2002, when he secretly pleaded guilty to the terrorism charges as part of a short-lived plea bargain.

His work as an informant ended after just a few months, when FBI agents searching his quarters discovered jihadist writings, instructions on how to make explosives and a list of U.S. agents and prosecutors that investigators believed he intended to murder.

Before his capture in Oman, several months after the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks, Jabarah attended terrorist training camps in Afghanistan and traveled to Manila and Singapore to plan bombings of American and Israeli embassies.

Jabarah spoke for 20 minutes before he was sentenced, claiming that he had renounced terror and insisting that that he had been "brainwashed" by extremists. He asked the judge to send him home to his family where he said he would live in "love, peace and joy."

"I do not believe in terrorism, violence and killing. I wanted to become a doctor, an ophthalmologist. I belong to a highly respected family. I am not a threat to humanity," he told the court.

But federal Judge Barbara Jones said regardless of his words now, he engaged in the "most serious criminal conduct" and that the decisions he made as a young man resulted in "a waste of a life that could otherwise have been very productive."

In arguing for the maximum sentence of life in prison, federal prosecutor Jennifer Rodgers said, Jabarah, "is the real deal, and the plot was the real deal, and people would have been killed."

 

[Roxanne Appleby]

I don't see the "behind closed doors" part.

???

 

[Jenny_Jackson]

Roxanne,
He was arrested. Hidden away in a secret prison. Tried in a secret court. And now that it's all over, they take him to an open court in New York to be sentenced. That's pretty much "behind closed doors" where I come from.

 

[rgraham666]

Well, damn, Jenny. Have you any idea what a pain habeus corpus is? How limiting innocent until proven guilty is? How much trouble it is to find evidence? How difficult it is to get a confession if you don't torture?

We didn't spend half a century at war with the Soviet Union without learning a few things about what works and what doesn't.

 

[Jenny_Jackson]

Well, damn, Jenny. Have you any idea what a pain habeus corpus is? How limiting innocent until proven guilty is? How much trouble it is to find evidence? How difficult it is to get a confession if you don't torture?

We didn't spend half a century at war with the Soviet Union without learning a few things about what works and what doesn't.

Yes, Rob. This perversion of the American Judicial System is what I'm afraid of. Who will be arrested and spirited away to be tried in secret next? You? Me?

 

[scriptordelecto]

It sounds like a plot point from a cold-war-era Clancy novel.

 

[sr71plt]

I was brought up to believe the U.S. was a country of laws. Laws are open to the public. Laws and trials are open for discussion and scruteny. Laws are NOT held behind closed doors. Prisoners are NOT spirited away to secret prisons and tried in some back room.

I was brought up to believe this too. But then I went to work for the government and was able to read in on all sorts of prior practice cases. (So, unfortunately this isn't a new phenomenum by any means.) I do like your version best, though.

 

[Jenny_Jackson]

It sounds like a plot point from a cold-war-era Clancy novel.

I was thinking La Femm, Nikita but it's all the same - Scary.

 

[scriptordelecto]

I was thinking {i}La Femm, Nikita[/i] but it's all the same - Scary.

Very much so. *nods*

 

[sr71plt]

Thinking LeCarré would be more realistic.

 

[matriarch]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/7195276.stm

 

[rgraham666]

Yes, Rob. This perversion of the American Judicial System is what I'm afraid of. Who will be arrested and spirited away to be tried in secret next? You? Me?

Probably me. Heretics aren't thought highly of in any society.

 

[Jenny_Jackson]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/7195276.stm

I saw that this morning. More proof Shrub is making the U.S. hated by everyone - even Canada. It's embarrassing to be classed with Syria and Iran.

 

[CharleyH]

I was brought up to believe the U.S. was a country of laws. Laws are open to the public. Laws and trials are open for discussion and scruteny. Laws are NOT held behind closed doors. Prisoners are NOT spirited away to secret prisons and tried in some back room.

I am not a guru, but isn't the whole concept of democracy a deception? Just a question.

 

[Zeb_Carter]

Uh, there was no trial to speak of, he pleaded guilty to the charges back in 2002 and then broke his deal. Sentencing was just delayed a couple, few, five years.

 

[Roxanne Appleby]

Seeking a little insight on what's with the "secret trial" and found this:

excerpts from "White House Seeks to Expand Indefinite Detentions in Brigs"
By JESS BRAVIN Staff Reporter of THE WALL STREET JOURNAL
http://trackingthethreat.com/genBinaries/1043_entity.pdf

. . . At the outset of the campaign against al Qaeda, the international Islamist network organized by Osama bin Laden, career federal prosecutors maintained that they are best suited to deal with terrorists. But the Moussaoui and Lindh cases soured top officials on that route.

. . . U.S. citizens or aliens arrested on American soil have better claims to constitutional rights than the foreigners captured overseas who are being held at the U.S. Guantanamo Bay Naval Base in Cuba. This year, two federal judges have ruled that the Guantanamo detainees have no right to seek freedom in U.S. courts.

. . . After dropping the most serious charges against Mr. Lindh, prosecutors agreed to let him plead guilty to aiding the enemy in Afghanistan, and he now faces 20 years in prison. But the elaborate defense put up by the Californian's lawyers drained government resources and threatened to expose intelligence, military techniques and personnel, and even to bring al Qaeda battlefield prisoners to the witness stand in the Alexandria, Va., federal courthouse. Mr. Moussaoui, a French citizen captured in Minnesota while allegedly conspiring to take part in the Sept. 11 plot, is representing himself and flooding the same court with bizarre and accusatory motions aimed at glorifying Mr. bin Laden.

By the time Mr. Padilla, an American from Chicago, was arrested in May, the administration already had tired of such games. Mr. Padilla is a onetime gang member who converted to Islam in the early 1990s. He was arrested after returning from Pakistan, where he allegedly took part in an al Qaeda plot to detonate a "dirty bomb" that would spread radioactive material in the U.S.
Originally jailed on a secret "material witness" warrant, Mr. Padilla was transferred to military custody on the eve of a hearing where a court-appointed lawyer was to seek his freedom. President Bush personally approved Mr. Padilla's transfer, but officials said they are considering procedures that wouldn't require presidential involvement in future cases.
Under one proposal, a committee of the attorney general, the defense secretary and the director of central intelligence would determine whether a U.S. citizen should go to military detention. If the prisoner were foreign, the national-security adviser also would be involved.

At least two prisoners now held as material witnesses could be candidates for combatant classification:

• James Ujaama, a U.S. citizen from Seattle, was arrested last month as part of an investigation into alleged plans to set up an al Qaeda-linked training camp in rural Oregon. He is jailed in Alexandria.
• Mohammed Mansour Jabarah, a Kuwaiti-born Canadian citizen, was arrested in Oman and turned over to the U.S. after allegedly plotting to blow up U.S. and Israeli embassies in Singapore. He is being held at Fort Hamilton in Brooklyn, N.Y., according to an administration official.

WASHINGTON -- Suspected terrorists Jose Padilla and Yaser Hamdi -- U.S. citizens being held in stateside Navy brigs without bail, charges, access to attorneys or the right to remain silent -- may soon have company.
Stung by the courtroom circus that yet another accused terrorist, Zacarias Moussaoui, has created, and the aggressive defense marshaled by John Walker Lindh before he plea-bargained his way out of a possible life sentence, the Bush administration is preparing to expand its policy of indefinitely detaining in U.S. military jails people it designates as "enemy combatants." Such prisoners -- whether Americans or foreigners captured in the U.S. -- aren't afforded the same constitutional rights as criminal defendants, or even the limited rights allowed in military tribunals.

This is hard. There are all kinds of ambiguities. We have never been here before, in an hot war against foreign non-state actors (with some fifth columnist natives). Should we pretend that we are not facing something unprecedented and genuinely dangerous, and allow either the standard criminal justice rules to apply, or the wartime POW rules? On the other hand, we can't just throw out our principles for expedience, either. Can we agree that balance is required, with procedural safeguards and some form of due-process protections, if not criminal justice ones that make us vulnerable to non-state foreign entities that want to hurt us?

BTW, I don't know but I have seen things that suggest that the UK and France governments have none of the delicate squeamishness about such things that are prevalent in the US - they are perfectly content to use all kinds of extra-legal procedures to deal with this challenge. True?

 

[sr71plt]

BTW, I don't know but I have seen things that suggest that the UK and France governments have none of the delicate squeamishness about such things that are prevalent in the US - they are perfectly content to use all kinds of extra-legal procedures to deal with this challenge. True?

True.

 

[Jenny_Jackson]

Then maybe the questions is this, Roxanne, do we want to live in a country where the rule of law is followed only if and when it suits the federal adminstration? If my memory is correct, I believe that system was one of the main reasons for the Revolutionary War.

 

[Roxanne Appleby]

Then maybe the questions is this, Roxanne, do we want to live in a country where the rule of law is followed only if and when it suits the federal adminstration? If my memory is correct, I believe that system was one of the main reasons for the Revolutionary War.

Let's define rule of law first. It means laws adopted through a democratic process and enforced equally. It precludes giving any government official the discretion to disregard in a particular case procedural safeguards designed to protect the rights of the accused. The content of those procedural safeguards is not pre-determined, but is established pursuant to laws passed by an elected body, or past court rulings. The only limitation is that they must not violate the Constitution. OK so far?

The Constitution grants pretty extensive powers to the federal government to accomplish several purposes - some of which at times co-exist in tension with each other - and some also impose some specific limitations. Two of those purposes is "provide for the common defense" and "and secure the blessings of liberty." One of those limitations is "No person shall . . . be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law."

OK, you can see the obvious potential for conflict and tension between some of those provisions, right? That's what I was thinking about when I wrote in my previous post, "This is hard. There are all kinds of ambiguities. Can we agree that balance is required, with procedural safeguards and some form of due-process protections, if not full-criminal justice ones that make us vulnerable to non-state foreign entities that want to hurt us?"

Bottom line: It is hard, and balance is required, and no one should pretend otherwise. Rhetorical question: If the responsibility was all yours, what would you do? A person who gives glib answers in either direction probably should not have the responsibility.

 

[sr71plt]

Let's define rule of law first. It means laws adopted through a democratic process and enforced equally. It precludes giving any government official the discretion to disregard in a particular case procedural safeguards designed to protect the rights of the accused. The content of those procedural safeguards is not pre-determined, but is established pursuant to laws passed by an elected body, or past court rulings. The only limitation is that they must not violate the Constitution. OK so far?

The Constitution grants pretty extensive powers to the federal government to accomplish several purposes - some of which at times co-exist in tension with each other - and some also imposes some specific limitations. Two of those purposes is "provide for the common defense" and "and secure the blessings of liberty." One of those limitations is "No person shall . . . be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law."

OK, you can see the obvious potential for conflict and tension between some of those provisions, right? That's what I was thinking about when I wrote in my previous post, "This is hard. There are all kinds of ambiguities. Can we agree that balance is required, with procedural safeguards and some form of due-process protections, if not full-criminal justice ones that make us vulnerable to non-state foreign entities that want to hurt us?"

Bottom line: It is hard, and balance is required, and no one should pretend otherwise. Rhetorical question: If the responsibility was all yours, what would you do? A person who gives glib answers in either direction probably should not have the responsibility.

Just off the top, do you have a source for that definition? Rule of Law just means there are established, producible, rules to guide behavior and to justify addressing of behavior proscribed for the provisions of the law. Nothing requires it to be a democratic process. If a dictator hands down written laws, (s)he's within the bounds of "Rule of Law." The alternative is a Kafkaish (a la Das Schloss) situation where you are punished without having any context why.

Having laws and just deciding they don't apply to you because they are inconvenient to taking you where you want to go is a whole different kettle of fish.

 

[Carnevil9]

What's the world coming to? A terrorist just can't get an even break around here anymore.

 

[Pure]

balance

RAThe Constitution grants pretty extensive powers to the federal government to accomplish several purposes - some of which at times co-exist in tension with each other - and some also impose some specific limitations. Two of those purposes is "provide for the common defense" and "and secure the blessings of liberty." One of those limitations is "No person shall . . . be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law."

OK, you can see the obvious potential for conflict and tension between some of those provisions, right? That's what I was thinking about when I wrote in my previous post, "This is hard. There are all kinds of ambiguities. Can we agree that balance is required, with procedural safeguards and some form of due-process protections, if not full-criminal justice ones that make us vulnerable to non-state foreign entities that want to hurt us?"

Bottom line: It is hard, and balance is required, and no one should pretend otherwise. Rhetorical question: If the responsibility was all yours, what would you do? A person who gives glib answers in either direction probably should not have the responsibility.

let's see. Rox believes in a "balance": In the US there should generally be due process, but sometimes the exec (GWB, Cheney), _for our own good_ in the name of "defending the nation" should be able to grab someone secretly and hold them forever without charges and a lawyer. (see the famous 'lettres de cachet' issued by the old kings of France. indefinite imprisonment, without trial, for persons like Sade, considered 'dangerous.')

this 'balance' existed in South Africa in the bad old days, where the head of the secret politice would determine who's a terrorist and have selected persons dispatched. the rest of the white folks continue as normal, with the normal rights.

people might want to look at Roxanne's other thread where she argues, the "free speech" is NOT subject to 'balance', even though the Canadian Constitution and Charter of Rights [equiv of US BR] say so.


http://forum.literotica.com/showthread.php?t=566099

when the Bush admin wants some 'balancing' --restricting a right guaranteed without qualification in the BR-- Rox is right on the case, even though a fellow is in prison for life. when the Alberta government wants to *fine* a fellow who posted hateful cartoons, she's a virtual absolutist, *no qualification for free speech* barring the narrowest exceptions for directly inciting criminal behavior. (see the thread mentioned).

i *love* the selectivity of libertarians!

 

[Roxanne Appleby]

RAThe Constitution grants pretty extensive powers to the federal government to accomplish several purposes - some of which at times co-exist in tension with each other - and some also impose some specific limitations. Two of those purposes is "provide for the common defense" and "and secure the blessings of liberty." One of those limitations is "No person shall . . . be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law."

OK, you can see the obvious potential for conflict and tension between some of those provisions, right? That's what I was thinking about when I wrote in my previous post, "This is hard. There are all kinds of ambiguities. Can we agree that balance is required, with procedural safeguards and some form of due-process protections, if not full-criminal justice ones that make us vulnerable to non-state foreign entities that want to hurt us?"

Bottom line: It is hard, and balance is required, and no one should pretend otherwise. Rhetorical question: If the responsibility was all yours, what would you do? A person who gives glib answers in either direction probably should not have the responsibility.

let's see. Rox believes in a "balance": In the US there should generally be due process, but sometimes the exec (GWB, Cheney), _for our own good_ in the name of "defending the nation" should be able to grab someone secretly and hold them forever without charges and a lawyer. (see the famous 'lettres de cachet' issued by the old kings of France. indefinite imprisonment, without trial, for persons like Sade, considered 'dangerous.')

this 'balance' existed in South Africa in the bad old days, where the head of the secret politice would determine who's a terrorist and have selected persons dispatched. the rest of the white folks continue as normal, with the normal rights.

people might want to look at Roxanne's other thread where she argues, the "free speech" is NOT subject to 'balance', even though the Canadian Constitution and Charter of Rights [equiv of US BR] say so.


http://forum.literotica.com/showthread.php?t=566099

when the Bush admin wants some 'balancing' --restricting a right guaranteed without qualification in the BR-- Rox is right on the case, even though a fellow is in prison for life. when the Alberta government wants to *fine* a fellow who posted hateful cartoons, she's a virtual absolutist, *no qualification for free speech* barring the narrowest exceptions for directly inciting criminal behavior. (see the thread mentioned).

i *love* the selectivity of libertarians!

Yes, but publishing cartoons doesn't blow up scores or thousand of people.

My post included a challenge, Pure - why don't you undertake it?

"If the responsibility was all yours, what would you do? A person who gives glib answers in either direction probably should not have the responsibility."

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Pure: "i *love* the selectivity of libertarians!"

Me: And I love the ability of - I don't want to apply a label: "Purists?" - to opinionate without any acknowledging any context of reality and the world we actually inhabit.

 

[Roxanne Appleby]

Just off the top, do you have a source for that definition? Rule of Law just means there are established, producible, rules to guide behavior and to justify addressing of behavior proscribed for the provisions of the law. Nothing requires it to be a democratic process. If a dictator hands down written laws, (s)he's within the bounds of "Rule of Law." The alternative is a Kafkaish (a la Das Schloss) situation where you are punished without having any context why.

Having laws and just deciding they don't apply to you because they are inconvenient to taking you where you want to go is a whole different kettle of fish.

All correct. I threw in the democratic part because we're talking the context of America and American political culture, and it's unlikely most Americans would go along without the democratic part. But, you're right - it's not required.

 

[neonlyte]

BTW, I don't know but I have seen things that suggest that the UK and France governments have none of the delicate squeamishness about such things that are prevalent in the US - they are perfectly content to use all kinds of extra-legal procedures to deal with this challenge. True?

Eh? What sort of things?
- secret trials?
- torture?