Straight out of Kafka.

[Theophylact]

Terrorism Task Force Detains an American Without Charges (The New York Times; FRYYY)

"If this kind of thing is permitted, then any United States citizen can be swept off the street and locked up without being charged."

[daveleau]

I don't mean to beat a dead horse, but this is not really cut and dry. There is reason for alarm, because this could be abused, but the Constitution says Habeas Corpus can only be suspended in cases of national security and invasion. So, they are not doing anything illegal in this action. It is something we should definitely watch and monitor for abuse, but this is within the rules.

[J-Excel]

The system is flawed. There's no question. Some innocent people will be detained.

But by the same token some innocent people get convicted of crimes they didn't commit. Does that mean we should not even try suspect criminals?

[Theophylact]

daveleau, what the Constitution says is this:

The privilege of the writ of habeas corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in cases of rebellion or invasion the public safety may require it.

There is neither rebellion nor invasion here; simply what the Administration has decided is a threatening situation. Notice that habeas corpus is not automatically suspended even in case of war.

[daveleau]

Yes, that is right. It is never automatically suspended, but under those conditions they are judgment calls to be made by the administration. The Constitution is vague as to whom has the right to suspend Habeas Corpus. Also, the word invader is where this is a major grey area. Who is an invader? We've disussed this before in a very thought provoking thread (not because of the originating thread but because of those who contributed). I believe this suspension of HC is being allowed because the constitution is being interpreted to mean that terrorists, regardless of citizenship, are being seen as invaders or rebellions. It is easy to see the threat of terror sleeper cells, and the need to erradicate them. The question is whether these do in fact fall under the auspice of invaders or rebellions. I believe it does, but it is not cut and dry and is open for interpretation.

[Theophylact]

Gag order forbids defense lawyers to discuss case. No public court record of his arrest; present location secret. No charges filed.

This isn't the America I know....

[no1_vern]

Unfortunately because of the people wanting security instead of individual rights, it may become the AMERICA WE WILL LIVE IN IF NOTHING IS DONE.

Vern

[daveleau]

I agree we should watch this and be aware and be cautious, but we should not condemn the government because A: we don't know the whole story and B: (the reason I stated above) these people can be seen as invaders because of their ties to Al Qaeda (provided there are ties). I haven't seen anything that brings about outright shock at their actions, but we must be aware and not let such an occasion pass by, should it ever happen.

[Theophylact]

daveleau, the reason we don't know the whole story is that the Government won't allow us to know any of it. Your assumptions seem to be: (1) they know the whole story; (2) it would be dangerous if we were allowed to know; (3) that they are acting with the minimum damage to civil liberties consistent with the national security; and (4) that they have no ulterior motives for their actions.

Many of us, especially those who lived through the McCarthy era, and the Watergate scandal, and the Iran/Contra affair (to name just a few) are far less sanguine, far less willing to assume that the Government is to be trusted in these areas.

[daveleau]

I lived through the Iran-Contra.

There is also the possibility that letting us know would tip off the people he is said to be testifying against. Although, yours are possible as well. I do tend to look at the gov't as overall trustworthy until I have reason to think otherwise. I haven't seen any corruption in this administration yet, although it has been alluded to by many and not pursued officially. My take is that those who oppose this admin in the govt (there are plenty) would bring up the scandal if it was actually there like they did with Clinton, Reagan and Nixon.

One book that discusses the scandals of the last few admins "Shadow" by Bob Woodward is a good source and has given me a decent look at the past since Nixon.