Publish to Newswire
Add an EventFrom the Open-Publishing Calendar
From the Open-Publishing Newswire
Indybay Feature
'DIRTY BOMB' SUSPECT CAN BE HELD INDEFINITELY
The US citizen accused of plotting to detonate a radioactive dirty bomb in Washington faces an uncertain future in military custody.
Abdullah Al Mujahir has been moved from a civilian jail to a high-security US Navy prison in South Carolina after officials determined he was an "enemy combatant" who posed a serious and continuing threat to Americans.
But a US Justice Department official said there are no plans to make him face a military tribunal set up for alleged terrorists because these are only for non-Americans. Nor are there any plans to press criminal charges against the al Qaida suspect.
Under US legal rules, Al Mujahir can be held indefinitely an as enemy soldier, the official said.
US Attorney General John Ashcroft defended the position, claiming that Al Mujahir is being held under the laws of war and under a Supreme Court precedent which established that the military may detain a US citizen who has joined the enemy and entered America to carry out "hostile acts."
The decision has been criticised by civil rights groups who said the US Government only moved him into military custody after failing to provide any evidence to keep him detained in the civilian legal system.
Al Mujahir's access to a lawyer is also expected to be severely restricted now that he is in military custody.
It is the latest controversy surrounding the American treatment of al Qaida and Taliban suspects.
The US Government came under fire from civil rights groups across the globe when plans for military tribunals were first released last year.
Under the initial proposals, defendants would in some cases not get to hear the evidence against them.
The revised plan for the tribunals, released by US Defence Secretary Donald Rumsfeld in March, give the accused many of the rights enjoyed by defendants in a normal trial.
But they will have limited right of appeal, and standards for evidence will be more relaxed.
Evidence which a "reasonable person" would consider relevant will be allowed to be heard in the commissions. This is a looser standard than US military and civilian courts, and is likely to give prosecutors more room for manoeuvre.
Hearsay evidence will be permitted, as will materials where the chain of custody cannot be fully established. US authorities said this was necessary due to the special circumstances of the war.
Suspects brought before the tribunals will have the right to a civilian lawyer as well as the military one assigned to them at the cost of the government.
They face the death penalty if convicted.
Mr Rumsfeld's promised that the tribunals will be "fair, balanced and just".
But William Shulz, executive director of Amnesty International USA, said: "We fear that in the proceedings undertaken by military commissions, justice may neither be done, nor seen to be done."
No tribunals have yet been scheduled.
****
U.S. Constitution: Sixth Amendment
Sixth Amendment - Rights of Accused in Criminal Prosecutions
Amendment Text | Annotations
In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence
But a US Justice Department official said there are no plans to make him face a military tribunal set up for alleged terrorists because these are only for non-Americans. Nor are there any plans to press criminal charges against the al Qaida suspect.
Under US legal rules, Al Mujahir can be held indefinitely an as enemy soldier, the official said.
US Attorney General John Ashcroft defended the position, claiming that Al Mujahir is being held under the laws of war and under a Supreme Court precedent which established that the military may detain a US citizen who has joined the enemy and entered America to carry out "hostile acts."
The decision has been criticised by civil rights groups who said the US Government only moved him into military custody after failing to provide any evidence to keep him detained in the civilian legal system.
Al Mujahir's access to a lawyer is also expected to be severely restricted now that he is in military custody.
It is the latest controversy surrounding the American treatment of al Qaida and Taliban suspects.
The US Government came under fire from civil rights groups across the globe when plans for military tribunals were first released last year.
Under the initial proposals, defendants would in some cases not get to hear the evidence against them.
The revised plan for the tribunals, released by US Defence Secretary Donald Rumsfeld in March, give the accused many of the rights enjoyed by defendants in a normal trial.
But they will have limited right of appeal, and standards for evidence will be more relaxed.
Evidence which a "reasonable person" would consider relevant will be allowed to be heard in the commissions. This is a looser standard than US military and civilian courts, and is likely to give prosecutors more room for manoeuvre.
Hearsay evidence will be permitted, as will materials where the chain of custody cannot be fully established. US authorities said this was necessary due to the special circumstances of the war.
Suspects brought before the tribunals will have the right to a civilian lawyer as well as the military one assigned to them at the cost of the government.
They face the death penalty if convicted.
Mr Rumsfeld's promised that the tribunals will be "fair, balanced and just".
But William Shulz, executive director of Amnesty International USA, said: "We fear that in the proceedings undertaken by military commissions, justice may neither be done, nor seen to be done."
No tribunals have yet been scheduled.
****
U.S. Constitution: Sixth Amendment
Sixth Amendment - Rights of Accused in Criminal Prosecutions
Amendment Text | Annotations
In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence
We are 100% volunteer and depend on your participation to sustain our efforts!
Donate
$170.00 donated
in the past month
Get Involved
If you'd like to help with maintaining or developing the website, contact us.
Publish
Publish your stories and upcoming events on Indybay.
Topics
More
Search Indybay's Archives
Advanced Search
►
▼
IMC Network
(CBS) U.S. officials are backing away from assertions that a man arrested last month in Chicago was plotting a 'dirty' bomb attack on the United States, CBS Correspondent Jim Stewart reports. U.S. officials now admit they're not sure what American-born Abdullah al Muhajir's plans were when he returned to the U.S. last month. And any plot, including possibly exploding a radiation bomb in Washington D.C., was in the 'initial planning stages.' But given what he'd trained for in Afghanistan, they expected the worst.'
In other words, they lied to the world. They are the scum of the earth. Now this guy is going to be locked up INDEFINITLY. Fascism is here.
Now, In the article linked below, we're told that Lawrence Livermore Laboratories is storing their hundreds of 55 gallon drums of nuclear waste under "tents" (actually, one suspects they're actually mere canopies) , because the storage building is "inadequate" - not full, but "inadequate". Funny thing is, it seems that the building was built to Lawrence Livermore's specifications.
OK, my fellow future detainees, let's recap:
We're told that Jose Padilla was trained to build a dirty bomb here:
http://abcnews.go.com/sections/us/DailyNews/chicagosuspect020610.html
From there, we're linked to another abcnews website that tells us how to make dirty bombs here (we don't need no stinking Al Queda, we got ABC):
http://www.abcnews.go.com/sections/world/DailyNews/dirtybombfaq020610.html
After reading that you're probably as guilty as Padilla, maybe more so, because now you know where to get some really nasty stuff:
http://news.lycos.com/news/forms/printstory.asp?section=Breaking&storyId=431312
Cognitive Dissonance - it's the American Way!
... in general a sleepy, lazy, convenient, blindness.
WAKE UP PEOPLE BEFORE ITS TOO LATE!!!!!!!!!
ps. the stock market's going to crash (it already has, but is being propped up with paper money from a private corporation, the federal reserve).
Will Bush Build an East German Stasi?
Dumb fuckers. So what? Should we release him and wait for him to detonate the bomb so we have a different crime to charge him with??
AAR, i've been "arrested and detained" which, in $eattle, WA, is not the same as just being "detained"; see, *they* (the powers-that-be, you know, the people commentor "dave" would admire) aren't supposed to be able to arrest you w/o proof *technically* but the police do it anyway. you're not supposed to spend time in lock up until you're judged guilty--of course, the law gets stretched because the criminal justice system employs many people and many contractors and we can't make life difficult for the law-enforcers of our society, can we? pigs gotta eat too...so they drag you into this part of "the system" where, to para-think gw bush, you're either a criminal or you're not.
i personally have been arrested and jailed for a short period because I WAS WELL WITHIN THE LAW WITH MY CONDUCT as a pig wanted me to do something simply because she said do it. (i was standing on the sidewalk and a $eattle Pig told me to leave the area but i explained to her--over and over again, as she continued "offering me a chance" to leave--that since i was on $eattle property and was in fact a resident of the municipality i didn't have to go anywhere. she never stated any "official" business she was conducting in the area and i was not hostile to her).
Orwell is not necessarily a genius; humanus is not necessarily going to overcome the effects of "mass stupidity."
as an aside, i just found a magazine in my local library called "Corrections Today" which on the whole a rather depressing, somewhat surreal read.
on that note i'd like to just say fuck authority (and the "daves" and SEN5421s of the world)
>> aren't supposed to be able to arrest you w/o proof *technically* but the police do it anyway.
They actually do have some proof of his training in this specific area and of his plot to build and detonate the bomb. However, indymedia would have you believe otherwise.
>> you're not supposed to spend time in lock up until you're judged guilty
Again, bullshit. Assuming he will be tried in court, he may or may not be released. This depends on what kind of a flight risk he is. I don't really think this piece of shit would hang around for trial, do you?? He can be detained as long as he is charged. Now if he is detained for too long a period of time without being provided a trial in a reasonable amount of time, that is a problem.
>> I WAS WELL WITHIN THE LAW WITH MY CONDUCT
You may have been, but he was not. Plotting to murder a mass of people is not within the law. I don't care what the fuck way you slice it. Plotting to murder is a CRIME!!!
I agree 100% with dave here. You lefties should have at least some small amount of gratitude for the FBI and other involved authorities. They may have saved your life, or the lives of your friends and family.
>> on that note i'd like to just say fuck authority
Obviously you have your indymedia blinders on and will never be able to see two sides of a story. Not all authority is bad.
While liberals will say otherwise, laws aren't the end-all and be-all. Even before 911 was a police state -- on paper, but not exactly in practise. Many of the repressive laws weren't invoked -- and still aren't -- because of the backlash that would ensue. Conversely, if the state -- having assessed the power equation -- deems it necessary it will transgress what rights it has yet to revoke formally. You know that.
Like I said a few months back, let's not make a fetish about "rights". The point is to build our power and capacity to resist repression -- and to chart something altogether new.
------
To begin with the political aspect, roughly speaking we can distinguish five degrees of “government”:
(1) Unrestricted freedom
(2) Direct democracy
____ a) consensus
____ b) majority rule
(3) Delegate democracy
(4) Representative democracy
(5) Overt minority dictatorship
The present society oscillates between (4) and (5), i.e. between overt minority rule and covert minority rule camouflaged by a façade of token democracy. A liberated society would eliminate (4) and (5) and would progressively reduce the need for (2) and (3).
http://www.slip.net/~knabb/PS/joyrev1.htm
------
so, i know its a stupid question, but are we closer to (4) or (5), since Bush became the selected president?
ok, politcal "science"/theory debates aside, a quick comment of my opinion on rights.
to put it simply, rights are rights, not privileges granted to us by the gov't. humans are born with natural rights, and in our system (admittedly flawed, but certainly not the worst one around), the gov't, is *supposed* to protect our rights, not violate them.
the process that led to the judi bari verdict is an example of how the judicial part of our system is supposed to work.
The information you are fed, is so obviously made up. Everything is qualified with terms indicating complete lack of evidence and fact.
The American people are being duped by scare mongering of the first order by their own government.
You are told this man was planning to aquire and set off a device...... Information from multiple (more than one) sources (could be any body). Transfered to military custody because INSUFFICIENT EVIDENCE TO HOLD HIM ON FEDERAL OR STATE CRIMINAL LAW.
On this basis you could take anyone and lock them up as Al Qaeda, and that's exactly what the US government is doing. Because so many stupid people believe them, when accused of manipulation they react with scare tacticts, such as this ALEDGED dirty bomb. Now you have Donald Rumsfeild seeing Al Queda behind every tree. No evidence, no facts. Fortunately there are only a few stupid Americans that believe the crap plus a few Yes-men cronies such as Blair. The rest of the world is just using this WAR ON TERROR to further their own agendas usualy related to consolidating power through money politica and military arms and eliminating oposition. The War on TERRORISM is an excuse for US IMPERIALISM. Dictating the abrigation of human rights and freedom for the security of who? Certainly, this war, as it is incorrectly called, is not to protect the American or any other people. The unfortunate thing is that it is the abrigation of rights, and the extention of exploitation by the American global Corporate/Political elite that will eventually create a violant reaction. When it happens this will of course be doubed as terrorism. GLOBAL IMPERIALISM is a fact. Of global terrorism what is not made up by the Bush administration is "made up" by the Bush administration.
My hope is that we can please get back to a world of FACT - PROOF - LAW - and RIGHTS and above all a degree of ETHICS. If they have the facts then there is no reason not to show them. REASONS OF SECURITY is not an acceptable response. The suspecion lies heavily on the Authorities as the cause of the problem....
I wish the worst thing Bush did, was get a Blow Job and lie about it. If you think so too take a look at the following and ask yourself the questions:
http://democrats.com/elandslide/petition.cfm?campaign=911
They. Them. Those who are not us.
The conspirators? The rulers? The man? The Big Kahuna? The head hancho? The top dog? The big cheese? Numero uno? The sneaky bastards? The chosen? The elite? The ones who'd see us fail? The opposition? The government? The corporations? The military? The administration? The few? The proud? The Marines? The faieries? The conglomeration? The facists? The FBI? The CIA? The po-lease? The IRS? The conservatives? The radicals? The war mongers? The oil barrons? The wispering willows. The muses?
Them? They? Those?
The unknown?
U.S. Circumvents Courts With Enemy Combatant Tag
(New York, June 12, 2002) President Bush's unilateral designation of Abdullah al-Mujahir as an "enemy combatant" creates a dangerous loophole that threatens basic criminal justice guarantees, Human Rights Watch said today.
"The president is claiming unfettered power to circumvent the justice system and its safeguards of basic rights," said Kenneth Roth, Executive Director of Human Rights Watch. "There should be a strong presumption that anyone arrested in the United States, far from any battlefield, be granted the full legal protections of the criminal justice system-including the right to counsel and not to be held without charges. Simply accusing someone of working with al-Qaeda does not justify throwing him into a navy brig."
According to U.S. officials, al-Mujahir, originally named Jose Padilla, had met with senior al-Qaeda leaders in Pakistan and Afghanistan to plan attacks in the United States, including the detonation of a radioactive "dirty bomb." Al-Mujahir was detained in Chicago on May 8, and then held in New York as a "material witness." This week he was sent to a military base in South Carolina where the U.S. government is holding him as an "enemy combatant" without charges or access to an attorney.
Human Rights Watch noted the contrast between the government's decision to treat al-Mujahir as an enemy combatant and its decision to prosecute the alleged September 11 "twentieth hijacker," Zacarias Moussaoui, on criminal charges in a federal district court. Both men allegedly came to the United States to carry out acts of violence at the direction of Afghanistan-based al-Qaeda operatives. "The U.S. government apparently wants to be able to question al-Mujahir while holding him incommunicado," said Roth. "But the government's legitimate desire to obtain information about terrorist threats does not entitle the president to assume unlimited powers to place in military custody anyone he identifies as a terrorist."
Human Rights Watch questions the government's contention that international humanitarian law - or the laws of war - permits the president to unilaterally designate al-Mujahir an "enemy combatant" who may be held by the military without charges or access to an attorney. International humanitarian law applies to the international armed conflict in Afghanistan, but it does not apply to any and all members of al-Qaeda regardless of their individual involvement with that conflict. To maintain its designation of al-Mujahir as an enemy combatant, the U.S. government would need to demonstrate to a civilian court a clear nexus between his activities and the armed conflict with the United States in Afghanistan. If a court determines he is an enemy combatant, then he may be detained without charges for the duration of active hostilities, but not indefinitely.
If suspects are apprehended outside areas of armed conflict and have no direct connection to the conflict, international humanitarian law is inapplicable. Instead, the protections of international human rights law apply. In the case of a U.S. citizen detained in the United States, the protections of U.S. constitutional law apply as well. These protections include the rights to be formally charged and permitted access to counsel.
"To permit a government that is at war in one part of the world to place people in military custody without charges elsewhere in the world without demonstrating participation in the armed conflict would create a gaping and dangerous loophole to basic human rights guarantees," Roth said. "Being an accused terrorist is not synonymous with being an enemy combatant. Otherwise, the president could detain and hold anyone without charges simply by labeling him a member of al-Qaeda."
© Copyright 2002, Human Rights Watch