Supreme Court OKs Secrecy for Post-9/11 Arrests

Col. Crackpot · Post by **Col. Crackpot** » 2004-01-12 11:13am

SCOTUS hath ruled. So says FoxNews anyway. no link yet.

Col. Crackpot · Post by **Col. Crackpot** » 2004-01-12 11:17am

here's the link:SHA-ZAM!

GODDAMN FOX NEWS. They didn't rule per se, they just declined to take the case, in effect allowing it to take place, but not clarifying.

Post by **Alyrium Denryle** » 2004-01-12 09:22pm

WHAT THE FUCK!? We have fucking right to that godless damn information!

Stormbringer · Post by **Stormbringer** » 2004-01-13 12:31am

Alyrium Denryle wrote:WHAT THE FUCK!? We have fucking right to that godless damn information!

Not necessarily Alyrium. There are a number of perfectly good potential reasons for that information to be withheld. The best of them is if we managed to nab people in a position to bust sleeper cells.

EmperorMing · Post by **EmperorMing** » 2004-01-13 02:24am

I don't like secret arrests. The ususal "Too-high-possibility-for-abuse" comes to mind...

phongn · Post by **phongn** » 2004-01-13 11:56am

Stormbringer wrote:Not necessarily Alyrium. There are a number of perfectly good potential reasons for that information to be withheld. The best of them is if we managed to nab people in a position to bust sleeper cells.

I have been unable to get any real confirmation on this, so take it with many chunks of NaCl. During the trial relating to the WTC bombing in the 1990s, prosecuters were forced to [publically] reveal that we were using satellite phone intercepts to get information. Said intercepts shortly became unavailable as those we were listening on stopped using the satellite phones.

That said, I am indeed wary about secret trials, despite the need to protect intelligence sources.

Post by **Alyrium Denryle** » 2004-01-13 07:15pm

Stormbringer wrote:
Alyrium Denryle wrote:WHAT THE FUCK!? We have fucking right to that godless damn information!
Not necessarily Alyrium. There are a number of perfectly good potential reasons for that information to be withheld. The best of them is if we managed to nab people in a position to bust sleeper cells.

If they can get away with making secret arrests, and witholding evidence(expressly forbid in the constitution I may add) what is to stop people from "vanishing" in the middle of the night?

EmperorMing · Post by **EmperorMing** » 2004-01-13 07:21pm

Alyrium Denryle wrote: ...
If they can get away with making secret arrests, and witholding evidence(expressly forbid in the constitution I may add) what is to stop people from "vanishing" in the middle of the night?

Exactly my thoughts. Stuff that would happen under any represive regime.

Rogue 9 · Post by **Rogue 9** » 2004-01-13 07:25pm

And stuff that would promptly stop just as fast as the House could pass an impeachment if a sitting President ever tried to make a personal Gestapo.

Post by **Alyrium Denryle** » 2004-01-13 07:44pm

The moment you allow even 1 secret arrest, you endanger every last citizen. there woud also be nothing stopping the president from having the congressmen charged with treason, or "vanishing".

Johonebesus · Post by **Johonebesus** » 2004-01-13 08:18pm

Ah, but we are in a state of war (one without a clear goal and could easily become an Orwellian perpetual war), and of course during war the President has to take drastic actions. Especially when the Congress is controlled by the same party as the White House, who would want to challenge the President when our safety is at stake?

Besides, Americans are so passive I don't think the People would care if we fell into a repressive regime. They already believe all the politicians are corrupt anyway, so they don't care that Bush misled us about WMD's.

Stormbringer · Post by **Stormbringer** » 2004-01-14 12:23am

phongn wrote:I have been unable to get any real confirmation on this, so take it with many chunks of NaCl. During the trial relating to the WTC bombing in the 1990s, prosecuters were forced to [publically] reveal that we were using satellite phone intercepts to get information. Said intercepts shortly became unavailable as those we were listening on stopped using the satellite phones.

That said, I am indeed wary about secret trials, despite the need to protect intelligence sources.

While that's interesting this "ruling" isn't about trials. It's about the records of the interviews and deportations, and detention of a few, of immigration violators after September 11th.

And yes, secret trials definitely are something to be very wary of. But there are good reasons to keep things quiet.

Alyrium Denryle wrote:If they can get away with making secret arrests, and witholding evidence(expressly forbid in the constitution I may add) what is to stop people from "vanishing" in the middle of the night?

The American public, perhaps? Stop and think about this for a second and pretend you're a rational human being. Since when does protecting legitimate national security interests (I'll remind you this has nothing at the potential trials) mean we live in a police state?

The simple fact is this is a legitimate invocation of national security.Should we have published the results of interogations of KGB agents during the Cold War too and damn the consequences? If there was useful information produced, revealing it to the world might jeapordize lives and allow more attacks.