US citizen arrested

[billvon 3,078]

Many months ago, when John Ashcroft called for military trials of suspected terrorists, he said a lot of things to placate the liberal elements of congress - this was necessary in wartime, it would never be used to arrest US citizens, only foreign terrorists, and it would only be used when there was a very clear danger.
Today they announced that, over a month ago, they arrested a New York-born US citizen and are holding him indefinitely. No plans were announced for a trial. He is accused of planning to use a dirty bomb against Washington, DC; but no plans, bomb parts, radioactives or timetable was set. The strongest indictment against him so far is that he met with Al Quaeda operatives and knows about bombs.
Now, perhaps this is a case of the FBI acting swiftly, on good information, to prevent a possible threat to the US, and is simply not revealing their excellent intelligence and cache of bomb parts they recovered due to national security concerns. If so, great. But another part of me wonders if this month-late announcement has anything to do with the recent revelations about the failures of the FBI and CIA in terms of preventing 9/11 in the first place. "We have a man detained who is a threat to the country and that, thanks to the vigilance of our intelligence-gathering and law enforcement, he is now off the street, where he should be" - said Bush today, and I can't help but wonder if this isn't a very public show of how our previously-faulty-but-now-fixed government agencies have really cleaned up their act in the past month. (Of course, he was arrested over a month ago, but most people don't read past the headlines.)
I still don't think it's unreasonable to hold people like this if there is good reason. But I'm starting to worry. Because if it's OK to arrest someone like this, perhaps, for the good of the US, it might make sense to arrest other threats - especially if the FBI needs to clean up its image. Perhaps it's a good idea to detain someone who has researched how to damage nuclear power plants, who has contacts with Arab scientists and engineers working on weapons, and who has access to sensitive US technologies - someone, say, like me.
-bill von

[bbarnhouse 0]

Um Bill? Don't worry hon, they've been watching you for years!
"Cheeky lil' thing aren't ya?" sez Ash

[jtval 0]

bill if it helps we can suggest your name to the FBI and see what they come up with Have fun, Live free, SKYDIVE!!
http://community.webshots.com/user/jtval100

[thrillseek 0]

I am by no means an expert on terrorism, but let me see if i have this right...
A man with intimate knowledge of nuclear weapons (i.e. "dirty bombs") is meeting with Al Quaeda members (perhaps the most dangerous organization in the world who HATE America, not to mention western culture) and is taken in and held with no plans for a trial as of yet.
Seems to me that there is a good reason for holding this guy. I mean, a year ago it would have been inconceivable that some crazies could hijack a bunch of airliners in unison and crash them into our cities, but it happened. We have finally awakened our collective minds to the fact that these people exist and operate in ways that are inconceivable. What if, for example, this guy was only one of a group of people planning to use a dirty bomb against DC...that would easily explain why there was no material evidence on hand. That being the case, would we want to release this guy back onto the streets? He most likely has valuable info about the case and is being interrogated thoroughly. I doubt that our government is trying to step all over our rights and see how far they can go with that agenda....more likely than not, this is a case of a credible threat that is being controlled.
And lest we forget that guy who was an american citizen that was found in Afghanistan fighting alongside Al Quaeda forces...this is a multinational threat. These people are in over 60 countries...Unconventional war calls for unconventional tactics. My $.02.
~~A.T.~~

[PhreeZone 20]

Ok... I'm tossed in the pool of knowing more then enough to make a "Dirty bomb". And with a small amount of time and reading I'm sure I could also explain in great detail how to make a dirty bomb and how it would affect the population thats exposed to it. The effects are not as bad as first thought. They are bad, but not near Hiroshima or Nagasaki effects. I already have read about both the original designs of the first 2 nuclear bombs created well before this stuff had to go underground. There is still a ton of it on the net that can explain in enough detail how to make a crude bomb that could take out a chunk of most cities.
What happens if my views suddenly are considered too liberal and I'm deemed a severe risk to national security. Just becasue I've read a book or visited a website thats now justification to toss me in jail with no trial in sight, no defense and no bail?
Has knowledge of technology alone really became enough evidence to hold someone with no bail?
If once you start down the dark path, forever will it dominate your destiny, consume you it will....

[Jessica 0]

Now I'm picturing Phreezone and billvon sitting in jail together, surreptitiously logging onto dz.com using a computer they fashioned from plumbing components and plastic forks.

[billvon 3,078]

>A man with intimate knowledge of nuclear weapons (i.e. "dirty bombs") is
>meeting with Al Quaeda members (perhaps the most dangerous organization in
> the world who HATE America, not to mention western culture) and is taken in
> and held with no plans for a trial as of yet.
>Seems to me that there is a good reason for holding this guy.
Well, I very much hope there is more to it than that. I meet the above qualifications; although I very strongly suspect the people from Pakistan/Iran/India that I know are _not_ Al Quaeda I wouldn't bet my life on it. In ordinary times it wouldn't bother me; any mistake would be quickly cleared up in court, and I could explain that the friends I've known since college were just that, college friends, and I didn't know they were supporting terrorists.
Now? Perhaps I'd just disappear for a few months. After all, why take the risk?
>I mean, a year ago it would have been inconceivable that some crazies could
>hijack a bunch of airliners in unison and crash them into our cities, but it
> happened.
But like it or not, it could have happened two years ago, and it can happen ten years hence. I hope our constitution and our bill of rights will prevail over all those times. It was not a document written for peacetime alone.
>I doubt that our government is trying to step all over our rights and see how
>far they can go with that agenda....
I honestly don't think they would do so with that intention. Still, I hope we do not return to the era of McCarthy, where the (very real) threat of Communist aggression was reason for all manner of violations of the bill of rights - in the name of freedom, of course.
-bill von

[kallend 2,107]

Quote

Seems to me that there is a good reason for holding this guy. I mean, a year ago it would have been inconceivable that
some crazies could hijack a bunch of airliners in unison and crash them into our cities, but it happened. We have finally
awakened our collective minds to the fact that these people exist and operate in ways that are inconceivable. What if,
for example, this guy was only one of a group of people planning to use a dirty bomb against DC...that would easily
explain why there was no material evidence on hand. That being the case, would we want to release this guy back onto
the streets? He most likely has valuable info about the case and is being interrogated thoroughly. I doubt that our
government is trying to step all over our rights and see how far they can go with that agenda....more likely than not, this
is a case of a credible threat that is being controlled.

Maybe you weren't alive during the McCarthy era.
Maybe you didn't read about the abuses of the Alien and Sedition acts.
Maybe you don't recall how the FBI infiltrated the Civil Rights movement and tapped the phone of Martin Luther King Jr. and others.
Maybe you believe the Constitution only limits the power of the government when it suits the government.
Maybe you believe the Administration has a foreign policy over and above the "war" on terrorism.

[thrillseek 0]

Perhaps if you had lost friends during the attacks your perception would be a bit different regarding terrorist's rights.
And Bill, the one thing that separates you from this guy is the fact that you don't meet with international terrorists. They clearly have information that they cannot release to the media regarding this event...isn't that blatently obvious??

[indyz 1]

Quote

Perhaps if you had lost friends during the attacks your perception would be a bit different regarding terrorist's rights.

The key word here is "rights." By definition, you, me, and a guy who wants to nuke Washington all have the same rights. They aren't rights if they can be taken away just because somebody is suspected or accused of being a terrorist.
--
Brian

[billvon 3,078]

>And Bill, the one thing that separates you from this guy is the fact that you >don't meet with international terrorists.
As far as I know, I don't.
From my perspective:
I knew a lot of friends from college who came from Iran, Pakistan, India and China. We keep in touch. I'm now an engineer, and I travel a lot to those same places for my job, taking batteries, chargers, phones, power systems etc. I have loads of junk in my garage, including skydiving gear, chemicals, and old notebooks.
With the right spin:
I regularly receive information from foreign nationals, some of whom have ties to terrorist organizations. I transport large quantities of restricted technologies to and from communist countries. I have concealed explosives and the makings of bomb detonators in my garage, as well as information on the weaknesses of nuclear power plant and aerial bomb delivery systems.
See how easy that is? Now, ordinarily, any such charge would be easy to refute - I could get a dozen people at an hour's notice to vouch for me on every bit of it. But now? Perhaps letting me talk to people might "jeopardize national security." They might not want to "take the chance."
Am I really worried? Not really. My friends and family would still make a huge stink, even if something so ridiculous did happen. But a foreign national with no friends here, who has a former friend who is now a terrorist? Who took a few skydiving, scuba and flying lessons? Who has been living in DC for five years and has aerial pictures of all the capitol buildings because he thinks they're cool? Who might even have some diesel fuel in his garage and fertilizer in his shed? He may not be so lucky, especially if we are now willing to forego such niceties as a trial.
>They clearly have information that they cannot release to the media
>regarding this event...isn't that blatently obvious??
So if they don't tell you (or anyone else) what you're accused of it must be really serious?
I would recommend the movie Brazil and the book 1984 if you really think this makes sense. Again, it may make sense in rare cases, but we seem to be heading down a slippery slope. First it was foreign POW's. Then it was essentially foreign agents in the US. Now it's US-born citizens, who have spent time in the Middle East - and we didn't hear about this for a month. What's next? Heck, what else happened last month? Last week?
-bill von

[Michele 1]

Thrillseek said

Quote

They clearly have information that they cannot release to the media regarding this event...isn't that blatently obvious??

Very true. Some of the facts of the case which have been reported on very scantily is the fact that this guy Padilla was originally picked up in Pakistan, along with several known AQ supporters. When they were let go, the Pakistani gov'nt relayed the info to the Embassy. An attache (read: FBI agent) recognized this guy's name from some earlier reports about possible american AQ sympathizers, and tried to re-locate him. they did, and followed him...back to the states, where they arrested him, allegedly with bomb making plans and outlines, contacts and various other incriminating evidence with him. They didn't get the other guys, though (although I heard a rumor that a guy named Benjamin something or other was arrested recently in connection with Padilla). They arrested Padilla, and held him as a federal material witness, and, as a fed material witness, I believe they can hold you for quite some time without charging you (if I am not thinking of other situations.). He was turned over to the State Department today (I believe it was the State Department; maybe it was some other arm of the Federal Government) but I don't know if they changed his status from material witness to something else. He has been allowed conversations with his attorney, but they are observed ala the Patriot Act.
Brian said

Quote

They aren't rights if they can be taken away just because somebody is suspected or accused of being a terrorist.

On the back of your passport, if you are an American citizen, there is a specific clause which states you forfeit your rights as an American citizen if you participate in a foreign army that is in conflict with the US (something to that effect. I don't have mine handy to check). In other words, if you bear arms or wear a uniform against the US, you do in fact loose your Constitutional rights. (I'm paraphrasing here. Bear with me...The argument can be made, however, that the AQ is not a country, and therefore cannot have an army, and you cannot lose your citizenship for participating in a group of people, be they terrorists or whatever...the case of John Walker is based on this, and will be a very interesting and precedent setting case. Thus there is no court martial, but rather a federal trial looming. The situation is intriguing because we have all the regualr rules of engagement for our holding of POWs, but not if they are American citizens under the abovde described conditions.
However you cut it, it is a sticky wicket. It would be "best" if this was a declared war, and then all the traditonal rules of engagement can come into play - but this isn't a traditional war, and not a traditional situation. But unless and until one of those dirty bombs explode, there will be people who scream that people's rights are more important than the common good - that ideology is better than realism, and that everyone should have the same rights as you and me.
I seriously doubt, Bill, that you will be picked up without significantly more evidence than "I know about bombs, and have Pakistani friends". I bet you're safe. Just don't run off to Afghanistan and go play cops and robbers with the AQ, o.k.?
I firmly believe that the Constitution will survive the coming challenges, and that, despite what some people think right now, it won't deteriorate to a police state and an American Gestapo (no-one here has said that - it was said elsewhere). I also believe that the Constitution is NOT a suicide pact - and says nothing about letting people who want to kill us be allowed to carry out their wishes. After all, that's their "pursuit of happiness", is it not? But no-one's advocating that.
Enough from me...and, as always, I reserve the right to be wrong, often and in a big way.
Ciels and Pinks-
Michele
Life is what you make it; always was, always will be.
~Grandma Moses~

[Lindsey 0]

Okay....now I'm drinking and posting. Just wanted to preface this with that....
But to me, the concern would not be about the possibility at this current time of "be[ing] picked up without significantly more evidence than "I know about bombs, and have Pakistani friends"." It would be much more about the clear possibility of giving too few too much power....
Please accept this in the spirit of love in which it was given.....
Peace~
Lindsey
Ya' know Smack-water Jack he bought a shotgun
'cause he was in the mood for a little con-fron-ta-tion

[AndyMan 7]

Quote

Am I really worried? Not really. My friends and family would still make a huge stink, even if something so ridiculous did happen. But a foreign national with no friends here, who has a former friend who is now a terrorist?

Andy Waves arms frantically....
What? Me worried? This *IS* a democracy, right?
_Am
ICQ: 5578907
MSN Messenger: andrewdmetcalfe at hotmail dot com
AIM: andrewdmetcalfe
Yahoo IM: ametcalf_1999

[FallRate 0]

Quote

Now it's US-born citizens, who have spent time in the Middle East

It is not the case that the US government is intering all citizens who are known to have ties to the "Middle East". They have taken one US citizen into custody and have chosen to detain him in such a manner that bypasses due process. This, of course, is in violation of his his rights as a US citizen. Unless of course you consider that as provided by Article I of the Constitution, the privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus can be suspended when in cases of Rebellion or Invasion.
Perhaps our "black and white" government is simply abusing its power by taking this individual into custody. Or perhaps they are not willing to make the same mistake that was made when the government of Pakistan offered the US government (under Clinton) an opportunity to take into custody one Osama Bin Laden, prior to 9/11, but declined because they were not convinced they could prove their case against Bin Laden for terrorist actions in a court of law.
For someone who finds it quite easy to insult others as to their inability to appreciate those precious "shades of grey" we encounter in life, you are surprisingly quick to embrace overly simplistic points of view.
FallRate

[Michele 1]

Morning, Lindsey...yes, of course it was taken in the spirit of drunken love with which is was written...

Quote

It would be much more about the clear possibility of giving too few too much power....

See, I just don't see it like that right now. Perhaps, should circumstances change, I would see it as a few powerhungry people running amok...but not at this time. The arrest was made, 302's written, the President was told, others with oversight were told. The reason for the secrecy was, imho, was not to hide Padilla away from the public, but also to keep his arrest secret from the people he was meeting with...and thus, allow the people charged with protecting us from further attacks similar to 9/11 to do their job, and see who else they could bring in. The secrecy was to protect some of the operatives and operational issues quiet. Look at the field day the media is having. Could the FBI have been productive in this particular fishbowl?
I don't understand how the FBI goes about investigating. I do know that there are things that fall into the catagory of "need to know", which I don't - no matter how much I want to know, I don't need to know it. And this secrecy (secret to you and I, not to others) may have given the FBI a bit of a lead in finding the others who would do you and I and our compatriots harm.
No, at this point, I honestly am not worried about too few with too much (as in power). There are enough checks and balances that, when applied properly, will create a tempered response, and hopefully prevent a dirty bomb exploding in your or my (or anyone else's) back yard.
Look, in most other countries, had this person been picked up for the charges alleged against him, he would be taken to the back country and a bullet put through his brain for treason, after massive beatings to obtain all his information. Then his colleagues would be rounded up and done the same way. That is not happening here. At this moment, he is being held on a Naval base in S. Carolina (I think), and is in military custody. He is not being "disappeared", like many other places. And if others are caught with malintent in the same degree, I venture to say they will not be "disappeared", either.
Just my .02, which is just as valuable as others' .02...
Have a great day!
Ciels and Pinks-
Michele
Life is what you make it; always was, always will be.
~Grandma Moses~

[Lindsey 0]

Hey, Michele! You obviously have a lot more knowledge about the internal workings than I do.... I just wonder if allowing people, now, to be held this way will pave the way for abuses of power in the future. I hope not. You seem to have a good foundation to work from here, and I appreciate your responses on this.....
Peace~
Lindsey
Ya' know Smack-water Jack he bought a shotgun
'cause he was in the mood for a little con-fron-ta-tion

[freeflir29 0]

Quote

There is still a ton of it on the net that can explain in enough detail how to make a crude bomb that could take out a chunk of most cities.

I really doubt it's that easy. Sure there is crap all over the net....but do you think it would really work? I have worked a couple nuclear weapons in my time and I can tell you that they have to be pretty precise. The fuel has to be of a pretty precise quality. The chain of detonations must be within some very tight tolerances in order for it to work. A truck bomb that takes out a city block or so is childishly simple. A nuclear weapon takes a bit more knowledge and more importantly TESTING. I don't know of any places in the world that testing a nuke would go unnoticed. There are sensors for things like that....
On the other subject.....Of course they didn't want to make Padilla's arrest public. Intel only works if it's a secret. I'm sure making it public was wholly a political move. They have been feeling a lot of heat on this subject lately. They needed a victory. I don't think anyone I know has anything to fear. The agencies involved in fighting this battle already have their hands full I'm sure. Don't be suprised if they might glance at you though Billvon. You look like the shifty type.
"Here I come to save the BOOBIES!"

[kallend 2,107]

How do you know he's a terrorist? Because the government tells you so?
That's WHY the constitution gives rights to the people.

[kallend 2,107]

Quote

But unless and until one of those dirty bombs explode, there will be people who scream that
people's rights are more important than the common good

Peoples' rights ARE the common good. The arguments you make are the arguments Hitler and Stalin made.

[billvon 3,078]

>For someone who finds it quite easy to insult others as to their inability
>to appreciate those precious "shades of grey" we encounter in life, you are
> surprisingly quick to embrace overly simplistic points of view.
I didn't say it was a black and white issue. As I've said since the beginning of this thread, in this case it may make sense. However, we are very, very close to giving the government way too much power, in allowing them to suspend basic civil rights for as long as the non-war "war on terror" goes on - which, from what our administration has said, will be a long, long time.
We have made mistakes in the past when it came to violating human rights, specifically imprisoning US citizens during WWII (Japanese internment camps) and with wire taps and secret surveillance during the Cold War (another famous non-war war.) We should be careful to not make such mistakes again. I don't think we have, yet - but we are getting closer.
-bill von

[kallend 2,107]

Quote

Andy Waves arms frantically....
What? Me worried? This *IS* a democracy, right?

Wrong - it's a republic run in a democratic fashion and with some history of abuses of power by the government of the day.

[kallend 2,107]

Quote

Look, in most other countries, had this person been picked up for the charges alleged against him, he would
be taken to the back country and a bullet put through his brain for treason, after massive beatings to
obtain all his information. Then his colleagues would be rounded up and done the same way.

Most? How many other countries have you visited where this happens? Perhaps you forget that in most of Europe the USA is considered to be a serious human rights violator of its prisoners. There are Al Quaeda prisoners in Germany right now that the Germans won't extradite because they haven't been assured that the USA will treat them properly.

[billvon 3,078]

>I really doubt it's that easy. Sure there is crap all over the net....but do you
>think it would really work?
Yes. Building a 100+kiloton bomb is very hard to do - the lensing alone took years to figure out. But a simple U235 criticality bomb? Really pretty easy to build, and there have been magazine articles on how to do it. Heck, there have been _accidents_ that set off supercritical explosions. You may get less than a kiloton out of it, but what do you think it would do to Manhattan (for example) if a bomb, consisting of a few hundred pounds of U-235, was detonated? Even if the yield was only a kiloton? The panic would kill far more than the blast, or even the radiation.
In any case, that's not what everyone's worried about lately. The big worry is a dirty bomb. Take some used nuclear fuel, put it in a tanker truck full of your favorite explosive, and blow it up. You get the same effect as the poor-man's nuclear bomb listed above - a big explosion and fallout.
-bill von

[freeflir29 0]

Quote

But a simple U235 criticality bomb?

Really that easy huh? I can honestly say I have never had ANY interest in knowing how to build one. I like things that go boom but...... I stick with conventional.....
"Here I come to save the BOOBIES!"