[Lerkfish]

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/08/19/po...itness.html?hp

AS VEGAS - Abdullah al Kidd was on his way to Saudi Arabia to work on his doctorate in Islamic studies in March 2003 when he was arrested as a material witness in a terrorism investigation. An F.B.I. agent marched him across Dulles Airport in Washington in handcuffs.

"It was the most horrible, disgraceful, degrading moment in my life," said Mr. Kidd, an American citizen who was known as Lavoni T. Kidd when he led his college football team, the Vandals of the University of Idaho, in rushing in 1995.

The two weeks that followed his arrest, he said, were a terrifying and humiliating ordeal.

"I was made to sit in a small cell for hours and hours and hours buck naked," he said. "I was treated worse than murderers."

After that, a federal judge ordered him to move in with his in-laws in Las Vegas, where his wife was planning to stay until she joined him in Saudi Arabia.

Mr. Kidd, who described himself as "anti-bin Laden, anti-Taliban, anti-suicide bombing, anti-terrorism," was never charged with a crime and never asked to testify as a witness. In June, 16 months after his arrest, the court said he was free to resume his life.

"The law was designed to hold Mr. A, the material witness, to testify about a crime committed by Mr. B, the suspect," he said. "Now they are locking up Mr. A as a material witness to the crime of Mr. A. The notion is, 'We'll hold him until we develop probable cause to arrest him for a crime.' "

welcome to the new world order.....

[macvillage.net]

Originally posted by Lerkfish:
welcome to the new world order.....

Actually it's not new.

It's traditional America. Sadly.

[Lerkfish]

Originally posted by macvillage.net:
Actually it's not new.

It's traditional America. Sadly.

well, actually, what's new about it, is the "terrorism investigation" category allows the govt. to do this while at the same time obstructing the person's due process, rights of representation, etc.

Supposedly, If I understand this correctly, NORMALLY it is unlawful to imprison someone without charges. the Terrorism appears to give carte blanche to rescind all rights.

This fellow was held for 16 months, and apparently mistreated, but never charged with anything NOR compelled to provide witness to anything.

[macvillage.net]

Originally posted by Lerkfish:
Supposedly, If I understand this correctly, NORMALLY it is unlawful to imprison someone without charges. the Terrorism appears to give carte blanche to rescind all rights.

Unlawful doesn't mean it doesn't happen.

It's not exactly easy to take a law enforcement official down, even if they do violate the laws. And they are well aware of it.

[Lerkfish]

Originally posted by macvillage.net:
Unlawful doesn't mean it doesn't happen.

It's not exactly easy to take a law enforcement official down, even if they do violate the laws. And they are well aware of it.

oh, I agree, but AT LEAST there are laws, even if they are ignored some percentage of the time.
NOW we don't even have those laws, so the subject can be mistreated 100% of the time, and there is no overseeing, there is no legal redress in the courts, etc.

It would be the difference in a boxing match where its against the rules to hit below the belt, but it still happens occassionally, to a match where the referee points to your genitals, looks at the opponent and says "you're free to kick him in the groin as much as you want, there is no penalty for doing so" and then walks out of the ring.

[dcolton]

Originally posted by Lerkfish:

Supposedly, If I understand this correctly, NORMALLY it is unlawful to imprison someone without charges. the Terrorism appears to give carte blanche to rescind all rights.

This fellow was held for 16 months, and apparently mistreated, but never charged with anything NOR compelled to provide witness to anything.

Did you read your own article Lerk, or did you just immediately jump to your conspiracy theories as soon as you saw the headline?

[djohnson]

Originally posted by dcolton:
Did you read your own article Lerk, or did you just immediately jump to your conspiracy theories as soon as you saw the headline?

I guess conspiracy jumping

[Lerkfish]

from the article:

But scholars and critics say the government has radically reinterpreted what it means to be a material witness in recent years. These days, people held as material witnesses in terrorism investigations are often not called to testify against others; instead, frequently they are charged with crimes themselves. They lack constitutional protections like the requirement that criminal suspects in custody be informed of their Miranda rights. Moreover, they are often held for long periods in the same harsh conditions as those suspected of very serious crimes.

Mary Jo White, who supervised several major terrorism investigations as the United States attorney in Manhattan until she resigned in 2002, said the frequent and aggressive use of the material witness law in terrorism investigations was a recent development.

[dcolton]

1.

After that, a federal judge ordered him to move in with his in-laws in Las Vegas, where his wife was planning to stay until she joined him in Saudi Arabia

He was simply asked to remain in Las Vegas because he was a person of interest. Can you think of examples where people were not allowed to leave a city or state because they were potential witnesses or suspects? Not as rare as you make it out to be. Or would you rather have a suspect free to committ crimes?


2.

Such laws, meant to ensure that people with important information do not disappear before testifying, have been used to hold people briefly since the early days of the republic.

Nothing new. National security is an important issue. I realize you would much rather face a terrorist attack and point your finger at bush for doing nothing...but you have to untie his hads first.