College Professor Arrested by Feds/Linked to Jihad

I want to add to KYN2000's response: it will be a futile consolation for the people perished in a terror attack that their killers were not neutralized since the law enforcers were too much concerned in keeping freedoms of everybody, including these of the victims. How can the dead people use these freedoms?

Folks are leaping to the conclusion that Federal government's expanded capability to surveil people highly suspect of being part of terrorist networks dedicated to the destruction of our country, and the murder of our citizens, has made a deadletter of the 4th Amendment. Not so. The government still has to recieve judicial approval, and information can not be gathered that is not directly relevant to an investigation. The use of cell phones has become a bit of Trade Craft widely used by terrorists, spies, and organized crime to evade taps. The new rules cover the loopholes that have made cell phones so hard to legally trap. Old restrictions as to how long a telephone tap might be used, has been extended. All of the changes recently adopted are narrowly focused on the need to more effectively identify and neutralize terrorist activity within the United States. So far there is no evidence, or reason to believe, that the new rules have been misused. I sincerly doubt that any successful legal challenge to the Constitutionality of the new rules would prevail.

The 4th Amendment is safe, at least for the moment. That doesn't mean that we should not be vigilant and intolerant of violations of the rules. The misconduct and misuse of wire taping by the Hoover Bureau, and Nixon's conduct amply demonstrate how easily individuals can criminally violate the intent of the Constitution.

Steissd,

Though we often agree, I don't agree that the use of the term "silly" is a violation of our rules to remain civil. Some of us regard the extreme pacifist position as "silly" and "delusional". They've been making far worse charges against those of us who believe in the necessity of military force to disarm Saddam as part of the larger effort to make the world safe. Ebrown is relatively new here, and his remarks are not nearly so prejudicial nor offensive as those we see daily from long time members.

I edited my post to try to make it less offensize.

My personal rule has always been that it is OK to attack someones argument as long as you were not attacking them personally. I did not call any person "silly", just one post. This seems to be a natural part of dialogue. I want to express my point of view strongly and to point out arguments that I don't feel are strong ones. It was not my intention to attack anyone personally.

But, I apologize if I offended anyone.

Well, I prefer usage of more neutral definitions. I would say the same thing in the following way: "I am not sure that your reasons are convincing enough, because...". This means absolutely the same, but it lacks any hint of personal insult.
BTW, I do not consider pacifists being silly people; I just disagree with their stance, since their claims, well, fail to convince me... I prefer to think that they just err in their assessments of situation and in recommendations how to make the world better (if this is essentially possible).

Usually, discussions such as this leave all of us right back at the beginnning.....where we came in.

I mean who amongst us, truly is going to change long held beliefs and firm principals?

None.

However, (due to a slow day here at "work") allow me to be totally frivilous, for a second. I will, for sure, later regret posting this....but what the hell "you only go around once".

So this:

You are a parent, with two children, both of whom are drowning.

Yes, I know, you've heard this one before.

You can, and must save only..... one!

Yes, absurd! But somewhere, this has indeed happened! And will happen again.

Ok, you must (immediately) choose one! NOW!

You must choose to either live in a Police State, with all the repression that that can conjure in your mind......or a land of no laws, with roaming wild gangs who are free to find and kill you and your loved ones, at will.

You are not allowed.... not to choose!

Why is it that most, if not all, would choose the Police State!

Here is why.

Because in time, with guile and cunning and (yes) even "example", one could in time, change.....soften.....wear down.....and finally break the bonds of imprisonment.

Choose Anarchy, and like the fire in a crowed building that listens to no one....it will consume all.

Brown
Have no fear I did not take offense by your use of the word silly. I hope you won't when I tell you that I think you are deluded or fooling yourself when you say.

To begin with I and no one else would be willing to take unnecessary risks especially ones that could endanger there family. In addition time and time again the rules have been stretched to a point of breaking in times of danger. The price of freedom you are so cavalier about has not been as you say accepted bravely. When push comes to shove people always put self preservation at the top of the to do list. Especially when it comes at so small a price as wire tapping of suspected terrorists.

It has been said that in a "man-on-the-street" test, very few people in the United States would agree to sign the Bill of Rights when it was offered to them as an initiative. "Radical," "subversive" and "too liberal" were some of the reasons given why people would not sign. Thank God it was signed into law more than 150 years ago when people were more worried about keeping the hard-won rights.

I think we need to be careful how cavalier the government becomes with our rights; eBrown is quite correct about that. The price of liberty is eternal vigilance. Please see:

http://www.theonion.com/onion3847/bill_of_rights.html

Any extreme positions in the discussion on the balance of individual rights and abilities of the government to provide security are counterproductive, IMHO. From one side, government must be able to curb the dangerous perpetrators that do not play in accordance with the rules the loyal citizens follow, and some special measures are needed to disrupt their plans and to neutralize them as soon as possible; such special measures may in certain cases not comply completely with the several basic individual rights' concepts. From the other side, totalitarianism must not become a result of such measures, since in totalitarian society no security is provided to the individual, and the state becomes the main offender.

Case tests government's new spy powers
PORTLAND, Oregon (AP) -- The government's expanded spying powers under the USA Patriot Act face an early legal challenge in the case against five people accused of conspiring to help al Qaeda forces fight U.S. troops in Afghanistan.
U.S. District Court Judge Ancer Haggerty was expected to hear arguments Tuesday and Wednesday asking the government to reveal its justification for 36 secret warrants the FBI used to watch and listen to the suspects.
"Civil liberties for the defendants, and all citizens, certainly are at stake here," said Whitney Boise, attorney for defendant Patrice Lumumba Ford.
Last October, federal agents nabbed Ford, three other men and one woman in what Attorney General John Ashcroft called a "defining day" in the fight against terrorism.
Ashcroft called the group -- mostly black American converts to Islam -- a terrorist cell. The men are accused of attempting to travel to Afghanistan in the fall of 2001 to join the fight against American forces there. They made it as far as China and turned back, court documents say.
Defense attorneys plan to challenge evidence collected under the warrants issued by the ultra-secret Foreign Intelligence Surveillance court, or "spy court," Boise said.
Law enforcement, defense lawyers and legal experts say the case in Portland is farther along than several other potential challenges to the new spying powers under a provision of the Patriot Act.

http://www.cnn.com/2003/US/West/02/25/spypowers.test.ap/index.html

And now the court will have it's say.

A patriot must always be ready to defend his country against his government.

Judy Genshaft, the President of USF, FINALLY fired al Arian. Seems that in addition to everything else, he was using the University's credit union for money laundering!

The authorities arrested a grad student in Idaho yesterday. A Saudi Arabian, he's accused of supporting terrorist groups through his work with information techhology. TV news presented the story as though the guy must be guilty as charged, including interviews with locals who expressed amazement that such a thing could be happening in Moscow, Idaho.

So much for the presumption of innocence until proof of guilt.

D'artagnan- I don't think that "Trial by Media" is anything new. People are just more aware of it now, and tend to blame everything on the government.

I am not defending the practice, but I do think that many people are edgy about terrorism, and these kinds of stories sell papers!

The problem, Phoenix, is that these suspects have fewer rights than US citizens do. Portraying them as terrorists and then locking them up makes it look like the Gov't is doing its job of protecting us. But who knows what's really going on. That's my concern.

What does it mean that the news media presented the story as if he was guilty? Did they publicize any verdict of the court? If not, they have just informed that the Saudi national was arrested as a terror suspect. Such an information is quite legitimate. I believe that if the suspect is exonerated in court of justice, the same media will inform public about his being innocent.

Let's see if I can explain how this works, steissd: The TV news announces a man has been arrested on suspicion of supporting terrorists. The reporter's tone connotes how serious this is. Switch to gov't official explaining how serious this is. Mention specific accusations against suspect. Then show sound bites of alarmed local folks who had no idea such a person could live in their midst.

Did he do it? Sure sounds like it. This is called Trial by Media, as Phoenix suggests.

By all means, I think that if the media noticed that the arrested student was a suspect, then they have done nothing illegal. Tone? Well, everyone may interpret the tone in his own way. I believe that when Timothy McVeigh was arrested as a terror suspect, media acted just in the same way they act now. But he is neither Arab, nor a Muslim.

I'm not talking about legality here. No one said the story was illegal. There are also considerations of ethics and responsibility.

Just curious, have you actually seen any of this media coverage? I have a feeling we're not talking about the same thing here, steissd.