![United States United States](http://a.fsdn.com/sd/topics/usa_64.png)
Former Intel Engineer Pleads Guilty To Taliban Aid 1449
theodp writes "Following up on an earlier Slashdot story, software engineer Maher "Mike" Hawash pleaded guilty Wednesday to conspiring to provide services to the Taliban, agreeing to testify against other suspects in exchange for the dropping of other terrorism charges. He will serve at least seven years in federal prison under the deal. In March, federal agents seized Hawash from a parking lot outside Intel Corp., where he worked, and held him as a material witness until charges were filed five weeks later."
shoulda shaved or something (Score:5, Funny)
Re:shoulda shaved or something (Score:3, Funny)
Re:shoulda shaved or something (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:shoulda shaved or something (Score:5, Informative)
Re:shoulda shaved or something (Score:4, Informative)
This guy simply wanted to go home, and protect his country from what he viewed as US aggression.
Hawash is a US citizen. This is his country. If he felt otherwise, what was he doing here?
Yeah, it's terrorism (Score:5, Insightful)
The Taliban is not a country. In fact, the Taliban has never been a country. They were not generally, in fact, Afghani - many (I believe most) were foreigners who simply took over, as 1) Afghanistan wasn't able to resist, and 2) they wanted a country in which to practice the most extreme version of Islam. So it would be a mistake to assume there was hardly anyone in Afghanistan who voluntarily supported the Taliban.
Second, this guy was Palestinian as pointed out. So he's not defending a country - he's committing acts of aggression against a country he does not like by aiding an extremely violent terrorist regime with a history of targeted violence against civillians.
That's terrorism in pretty much any book.
Slashdot moderation in action (Score:5, Insightful)
Slashdot for you. The factually false post bashing the US gets +4 Interesting, while the corrections pointing out facts that put the US case in a more favorable light get no higher than +2.
Figures.
-jimbo
Weird (Score:5, Informative)
Re:shoulda shaved or something (Score:4, Informative)
Re:shoulda shaved or something (Score:3, Funny)
Is THIS the kind of people taking our tech jobs away?!?
Man I must have the wrong approach to looking for work. They are looking for diversifying. I'll put gay nymphomaniac Siberian on my resume.
Re:shoulda shaved or something (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:shoulda shaved or something (Score:5, Funny)
Re:shoulda shaved or something (Score:5, Funny)
I understand his feelings. (Score:4, Interesting)
Before 9/11 I was just an average minority guy. On 9/11, I was as shocked and devastated as everyone else. I spent hours in front of a TV with my co-workers wondering at the hugeness of it all and at the pain of it all.
But over the weeks that followed, things began to change.
I have always worn a little facial hair, and I have a dark complexion. I never thought twice about it, I thought I looked better with a little facial hair.
Well... After 9/11, I got accused by people I formerly thought I knew very well. Apparently many of them had no idea about my ethic background and were prepared to simply assume that everyone who wasn't white, black or chinese was Arabic. People would stop talking about 9/11 and the pain they felt when I came in the room. They would give me looks that I'll never forget.
I began to be accused in public places. People would actually yell out on busy streets: "Hey, check out the terrorist!" and people would catcall, throw drinks out of their cars at me, give me poor service at restaurants...
After 9/11, I began to realize that my "fellow Americans" actually hated my guts and wanted me dead. In fact, when I began to observe peoples' interactions with one another, I realized that much of the NAACP's lobby is actually right on the money... White America still wants minority people dead.
Once I came to this realization, it wasn't hard to begin to feel like I don't belong after all. Like maybe these aren't my people. When someone demanded to search me before letting me into their stupid little restaurant, it was easy to begin to feel as though I was betraying those who were like me if I was to allow myself to be searched or treated in this manner.
9/11 showed me that America is a hateful place. It proved that unlike in Europe (that Americans seem to hate with a passion), in America 3,000 white dead outweigh by a generous margin 3,000 Afghani dead or 3,000 Iraqi dead.
No, I'm not Arabic, either, or a Muslim. But I've been accused of as much umpteen times since 9/11 even though I was born here, and my parents were born here. That's right, accused. Being non-white is an accusation in the US.
So I can understand this guy's feelings after 9/11 because I had them too, and I wasn't even of the same heritage. And I, too, now wear a much longer beard than I ever did. Why? I suppose it's my little demonstration of anger at the way I was treated after 9/11.
Re:I understand his feelings. (Score:4, Insightful)
White America still wants minority people dead.
This is one the most aggravating posts I've seen on Slashdot in a while. In trying to show how you were pre judged because of your appearance, you go on to portray every white American as people who wish every minority would die!? Did you not learn anything about the stupidity of prejudice in your experiences?
No... No... No... (Score:5, Interesting)
dark middle-eastern looking men are Terrorists
white balding men are Embezzalers and Stock Manipulators (for instance a certain umbrella organization or "canopy" group we can all think of), they hurt the economy by destroying competitors resources (money, clients, possible engagements/sales), spreading fear and
hmmm
Re:No... No... No... (Score:4, Funny)
Re:Exactly, he looks like a terrorist so arrest hi (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Exactly, he looks like a terrorist so arrest hi (Score:5, Insightful)
camo? suspicious? (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Exactly, he looks like a terrorist so arrest hi (Score:5, Insightful)
Don't be so sure. I don't know if he is in fact guilty in this case, but people have been known to plead guilty when they are in fact innocent.
Here's a possible scenario. They pick him up on secret evidence and secret warrant, then hold him secretly with no access to a lawyer or his family. That's pretty scary right there.
Next, they tell you, "listen buddy, you look just like one of Osama's boys, so when we put you before a jury of your *peers*, they'll have no problem locking you away for the rest of your life being gang raped by muslim-hating white supremicists"... OR, if you plead guilty, we'll take it easy on you, put you in a nice prison, and you'll see your family in 7 years."
What does his lawyer tell him? Oh wait, he didn't have access to one for quite a while... in fact, nobody did.
What do you do given a choice like that?
Prosecutors have a lot of power in our system, particularly when they can frighten you into pleading guilty out of fear for what a guilty verdict means.
Re:shoulda shaved or something (Score:4, Insightful)
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Furthermore... (Score:5, Informative)
If you weren't shot out of hand, you'd have spent the rest of your life in a French jail, along with the other collaborators.
Re:Furthermore... (Score:3, Informative)
Wrong.
First; there is under international law in this area (the Geneeva Convention, which USA signed and ratified) any category as "irregular combatants" or the often used "unlawful combatant". Classifying a person as such a thing is actually in itself a violation of the Geneva Convention.
However there are categorys
Re:Furthermore... (Score:5, Informative)
Here's the main definition: The section goes on, but the subsequent passages either speak to edge cases.
Key is, a covert enemy agent meets none of the four tests for being a prisoner of war. In that case, there's no question about whether or not that agent is covered by the provisions of the Convention; he or she is not. Irregular combatants may or may not be, but generally would not be covered. The foreign combatants in Afghanistan directly associated with Al Quaeda were clearly not covered: they were not commanded by a responsible officer, they wore no distinctive signs, they concealed their weapons, and they did not conform to the standard laws and customs of warfare (including the Third Geneva Convention, which forbids the taking of hostages and direct attacks on civilians, both of which many of the GB detainees had done.)
In short, GB may be wrong, and is a PR disaster, but it is not illegal, no matter what HRW wants you to believe.
Re:Furthermore... (Score:5, Informative)
http://www.spinsanity.org/columns/20011008.html [spinsanity.org]
The US gave money to NGOs (humanitarian organizations) working in Afghanistan, not to the Taliban. Before 9/11, only 3 countries even recognized the Taliban, and the US was not one of them.
As for the UNOCAL pipeline myth, while it is true that there were such negotiations, they did not involve the US government, and occurred in 1999 - you know, before Bush was in power:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/1984459.stm [bbc.co.uk]
Jesus, people, try to check facts a little before you post, or mod.
The funny thing is, people were claiming that the war in Afghanistan was about oil, yet their only argument for that claim was that the US wanted this pipeline. Two years later, where's the pipeline?
Now people are claiming that the US invaded Iraq to get its oil. Yet oil production remains below pre-war levels, and the first shipment of oil did not go just to US firms, but was split with European firms as well (include France's TotalFinaElf).
Re:Talaban != Government? (Score:3, Informative)
They were only recognized as such by three countries out of the whole wide world. It wouldn't take many guesses to get all three.
The Taliban was a revolutionary force seeking to oust the legitimate governement recognized by the rest of the world. They held no aspects of government control but operated territory under their sway ( which never even amounted to a clear majority of territory) under pure martial law. They had no civil police. No civil law for such civ
Re:Talaban != Government? (Score:5, Informative)
Because the Talaban sheltered Al Quaeda, provided them land to build training camps, and refused to give up their leadership even after the attacks of 9/11?
I think that their direct support of Bin Laden makes a clear case that they are culpable for terrorism. And I don't even agree with the war on Iraq or any of the dozens of stupid things the Feds have done in the name of defending us from terrorism.
Re:Talaban != Government? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Talaban != Government? (Score:5, Informative)
Sigh. The world does have some gradation in shading, however.
Repeat after me: The CIA never funded Osama bin Laden.
He's a freakin' multi-billionaire, he didn't need the funds.
They funded other groups such as those led by Abdul Haq who cooperated with bin Laden in ousting the Sovs. However, those groups didn't agree with the Taliban, which Osama supported, and so most of them were killed or fled the country. In fact, Haq was killed when he went into Afghanistan to try to rally people around him. If you want to blame the CIA for something, try for not supporting Haq or hooking up with the military to get him out when he realized he was being surrounded.
The CIA has much to be ashamed of, you don't have to invent stuff because it helps your immediate rhetorical need.
Re:Talaban != Government? (Score:4, Informative)
The word was 'trained' not 'funded', and I don't know anyone who is denying that the CIA trained him.
So please address the point that was made, not the one you'd like to answer.
Re:Talaban != Government? (Score:4, Insightful)
Yes, Amerika is Savage and Evil (tm)! That's why with the ability to literally snap its fingers and destroy the entire planet or any portion (Country) thereof, it never has.
So can any country that possesses nuclear weapons, such as France, Russia, or China. Or even India. If someone did not notice, government of any of those countries is either few keypresses, or few months of missile-building away from turning Washington, DC and NYC into two holes in the ground, not to mention various other nasty things that can be done with existing nuclear weapons. I don't see any of those countries demanding to be treated as The Owners Of The Earth, or randomly attacking the rest of the world.
Re:Talaban != Government? (Score:3, Insightful)
Umm...no. Bin Laden may have been trained by the US, but the Taliban were a Pakistani creation.
Even if it did, someone helping someone who helps terrorists is not a terrorist
And if you bothered to read anything else I've written in this, you'd know that I was not saying that Mike was or should be treated as a terrorist. Quite the opposite, in fact. It remains that asking "why would anyone consider the Taliban the same as Al Quaeda" is a real
From an Afghani slashdotter (Score:5, Insightful)
Comment removed (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Talaban != Government? (Score:4, Insightful)
Get your dick out of your ass. The Taliban were just bullshitting us. There was plenty of proof for extradition, and everyone knew it.
bin Laden was known by everyone to be the head of the terrorist organization that was dedicated to killing as many Americans as possible. They took responsibility for bombing the USS Cole, the two African embassies, and many other terrorist acts.
On Sept 11, I and quite a few other people around the world, when we thought about who to blame, thought first of Osama bin Laden.
Why? Because everyone in the fucking world knew he was the head of an evil international well-funded terrorist organization dedicated to killing Americans! (and based out of Afghanistan)
ps. mod parent down as flamebait. I can't believe I got sucked in.
Re:The Taliban is NOT Al Qaeda, thats the whole po (Score:5, Informative)
Woah, hang on there. The only country that recognized the Taliban as the government of Afghanistan was Pakistan. Nobody else in the world thought they were a "legit" government, and they didn't even represent Afghanistan in the United Nations.
And they had a hell of a lot to do with Al Qaeda. They provided logistical support and gave aid to Al Qaeda, and they did so knowing that he was carrying out terrorist activities (here is the US's stance [usembassy.be] on the Taliban). Nobody really disputes this. Some people have even speculated that Bin Laden requested Mullah Omar's approval before any terrorist act.
Re:The Taliban is NOT Al Qaeda, thats the whole po (Score:3, Interesting)
> Why, then, didn't they give up bin Laden when we asked?
Because we didn't show them the evidence against him, just as we would have demanded of them if they wanted us to hand over one of our citizens.
OK, that was probably just an excuse on their part, but there's no reason we couldn't have observed the norms.
Treasonous criminal or not... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Treasonous criminal or not... (Score:4, Insightful)
Exactly. Just because this guy really was a terrorist doesn't mean that the Feds will have fingered the right guy when the come to get you. If the Federales can't bust a criminal without giving them the benefit of due process then I would rather have that criminal out on the street. I would rather have seen Mike walk than to have the government hold him for several weeks without arresting him. Due process is part of what makes the U.S. a good place to live.
That being the case, this will probably work out in Mike's favor as it gave him the opportunity to be a "witness" instead of a suspect. Seven years in prison is a pretty lenient sentence for conspiring with terrorists.
Re:Treasonous criminal or not... (Score:3, Interesting)
Semantics. American citizens going out of their way to aid foreign terrorists are terrorists. I am all for due process, but I am also all for stringing up everyone involved with terrorists.
The fact that the Feds are willing to plea bargain with Mike means that he at least was involved enough with terrorists to implicate them in crimes. That's more than close enough to make him guilty in my book. Once again, the fact that he was dragged in as a "witness" almost certainly helped him get his plea bargain
Re:Treasonous criminal or not... (Score:4, Informative)
Re:Treasonous criminal or not... (Score:5, Insightful)
People often say, "Yeah, but he was a terrorist! He has no rights! I have no sympathy. Do you really want this guy to go to trial and risk him being set free?"
Yes. He does have rights. As an American citizen, he is innocent until proven guilty beyond the shadow of a doubt. He is an alleged terrorist. Quite a difference. And if you really think tearing to shreds the fundamental basis of our freedoms does a whole lot to protect them, you are very sadly wrong.
If the terrorists really want to destroy our way of life, all they have to do, at this point, is sit back and hope the Bush administration gets re-elected. Ashcroft's disdain for the rule of law--his disdain even for court orders he doesn't feel like complying with--shows him to be worse than just a silly ideologue. He has no conception of justice, no respect for the ideals he claims to be defending, and is more of a threat to our American way of life than any terrorist.
Wonder how much his 'defense fund' received (Score:3, Interesting)
you still don't know he isn't innocent (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Wonder how much his 'defense fund' received (Score:3, Funny)
Their whole life they planned this. All his friend thought this out; convincing Mike to support and fight for Taliban. Taking uni degrees and getting jobs in the communiyty close to him, lurking around him for the whole purpose of becoming his friends etc.
But it was all a giant scam; through the support side and the extremly lucerative Paypal system they planned to "rack in" money. Doing this they planned and
That is some damning testimony (Score:5, Informative)
"You and the others in the group were prepared to take up arms, and die as martyrs if necessary, to defend the Taliban. Is this true?" U.S. District Judge Robert E. Jones asked Hawash during the hearing.
"Yes, your honor," Hawash replied.
I had really hoped that the US Gov was wrong for nabbing a US citizen. I had hoped that there would be a suite against the gov for violating civil rights.
But Damn!
This doesn't look good.
Rubbish (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:That is some damning testimony (Score:5, Insightful)
While a convicted felon loses some of their rights, until the point of their conviction they've got all of their rights and should still be treated as such until a conviction is reached. Innocence or guilt are irrelevant when it comes to imporoper imprisonment.
Re:That is some damning testimony (Score:5, Interesting)
As for his guilt, there is always the possibility that he took the most certain way out rather than gambling his innocence against 20 years in prison. Given the witch hunt atmosphere, he could rightly believe that even though innocent he couldn't prove it.
Oh, by the way, why didn't they abduct the other 6 people and hold them without charge for 5 weeks to forver too?
Re:That is some damning testimony (Score:5, Interesting)
This is an important point to remember, and one that is well illustrated by a little history.
In 1930s Stalinist Russia, hundreds of political prisoners were convicted of treason and either executed or carted off to the gulag. What is remarkable about these cases is not the fact that they happened, but the fact that the trials and subsequent convictions appeared to be conducted in accordance with proper forms and procedures. The accused would be afforded access to legal representation, but would then proceed to get up, in open court, and swear on their mother's grave that they were guilty of the most heinous treason when all they had possibly done was express the mildest dissent, often privately, or ended up in the wrong political faction. The Soviet regime was then able to deflect criticism of the suppression of dissent by simply pointing to the apparent fairness of their trial process, often with the assistance of Western apologists such as English QC D. N. Pritt.
The trick, of course, was worked before trial, during a period of a number of weeks (usually) when the accused was held incommunicado and subjected to severe psychological pressure and physical mistreatment (such as food and sleep deprivation, interspersed on occasion with outright physical torture) designed essentially to brainwash the unfortunate suspect into confessing. If necessary, threats were made against the suspect's family to induce a confession. This process was referred to by its architect, Soviet prosecutor Andrei Vyshinsky, as "the conveyor", and it is the twentieth century's greatest testament to the need for access to criminal suspects at all stages of the judicial process, from arrest to conviction.
Until verifiable physical evidence of what Hawash is alleged to have done is produced, this confession convinces me of nothing other than that John Ashcroft, the man who ultimately bears responsibility for Hawash's treatment and prosecution, is just a latter-day Vyshinsky and a disgrace to his profession.
You know what's sad about this? (Score:5, Insightful)
Mark my words, there will be innocents who get caught up, and due to cases like this people will be reluctant to support them. Sad.
Re:You know what's sad about this? (Score:3, Insightful)
Why does this mean innocents are going to go down? Jesus, can the Slashdot crowd get any more clueless? You people, which I somehow am one of, can't accept the fact that law enforcement has a purpose especially when it involves a "geek." Wake up and smell the latte, folks. The bad guys, and I'm not talking about the blackhats, aren't going to wear armbands and shirts with epaulets and stand opp
Remember kids... (Score:5, Funny)
The others (Score:3, Interesting)
Why do most assume he is guilty? (Score:4, Insightful)
I, for one, don't know if he is guilty or innocent, but I sure-as-hell am not going to believe a plea bargain arragement. Most of you predicted that the Patriot Act would be used in exactly that way - to force plea agreements.
As far as I am concerned, the government's case remains unproven.
Re:Why do most assume he is guilty? (Score:4, Insightful)
Yes and no.
He plead guilty to One of the charges against him. One of the lesser of the charges against him.
Personally, I am a bit skeptical about the whole thing, owing a lot to the violation of Habeas Corpus, and the current political situation. From what I understand there are still thousands of people being held as "material witnesses" without charges being filed. I think the main reason they bothered to file charges against Hawash is that he had a bunch of friends who made a big fuss.
So what "Conspiracy Theory" am I proposing? That he was somehow threatened and told to plead guilty. Why? Because the "gubment", err the politicians are afraid of looking foolish nowadays and they need to convict someone, and a No Contest plea wouldn't cut it for the political side of things. I think part of plea barganing is that he had to plea Guilty and not just No Contest.
OK, I have the 11pm news on and they just quoted someone (I think Ashcroft) saying they hope this guilty plea will restrain critisism of the FBI. (Or something to that effect.)
Anyway, hypothetically let's assume that he really is guilty. If he was really a Political Islamist Terrorist he would be prepaired to die or to spend the rest of his life in jail for his beliefs. Therefore if he really is a terrorist then he is unlikely to cooperate in any way, let alone testify against his "fellow conspirators."
He just doesn't seem to fit the profile. He has a family and a good job at Intel. He had a happy life and a lot to loose.
Another thing that's bugged me about the "Portland Six/Seven" conspiracy theory is this: Supposedly their plan was to fly/travel all the way to Afganistan to fight American troops. Now, considering that they were already in the USA, wouldn't it have been a lot simpler to attack Americans in America if that was really their goal? or that they would travel to one of the most remote (and particularly hard to get to at the time) regions in the entire world.
Until I see/hear real evidence I will remain skeptical of the "gubment" thank you very much.
Conspiracy? (Score:3, Informative)
Wow (Score:4, Insightful)
But guilty or not, it didn't seem right for him to be held in prison for several months without being charged, calling him a "material witness". One could say they forced his confession, because they admittedly weren't going to let him out until they heard what they wanted.
Re:Wow (Score:5, Insightful)
Let's focus on another part (Score:4, Insightful)
Is anyone else disturbed by this?
Don't you have a Bill of Rights? (Score:4, Interesting)
It seems like the executive is getting permission to do something from someone who does not have the power to give that permission. Yes, the legislature may have granted the judiciary the power but it does not fall under normal judicial powers, totally circumvents due process and, I would guess, would be unconstitutional.
Well at least he's better of that the guys living in dog kennels at Guantanamo Bay.
Re:Don't you have a Bill of Rights? (Score:3, Insightful)
Yes, in their role as the watchdog over the policemen's shoulder, judges can be both our friends and our enemies. Judges are people, and people are either good or bad. Good judges use their power wisely; bad judges abuse thei
GUILTY plea, not an ALFORD plea. (Score:5, Informative)
There's a special kind of plea you use when you're taking a conviction on lesser charges out of fear that you're looking at a much greater time if you're convicted on the original charges. It's called an Alford plea, closely related to a nolo contendre plea.
Nolo has been expressed in layman's terms as "I didn't do it, judge, and I'll never do it again!" You neither admit guilt nor protest your innocence. As a result, many judges refuse to enter nolo pleas; they demand that you either admit or deny responsibility, and if you insist on nolo a "not guilty" plea will be entered instead.
An Alford plea is a far different thing. An Alford, in layman's terms, is "Judge, I didn't do it, but I'm terrified of the original charges and I think they could convict me on it." An Alford plea allows you to formally and legally protest your own innocence, while at the same time stipulating that the government could convict you if it went the whole nine yards, and thus avail yourself of the plea bargain.
Mike Hawash didn't plead either nolo or Alford.
Mike Hawash plead guilty.
Guilty, as in "yes, Your Honor, I fucking did it! "
Could we please, please, please stop seeing these self-important, self-aggrandizing rants from Damn-the-Man slashdotters who don't even care to learn about the difference between a guilty plea and an Alford plea, and why it's so significant that Hawash didn't plead Alford?
Re:GUILTY plea, not an ALFORD plea. (Score:5, Insightful)
Which lawyer did he get, to explain this theory (which I've never heard of as a foreigner that has lived in this country for a quite while) to him while he was not allowed to contact the outside world?
I don't consider a confession of someone who has not been allowed a proper trial worth anything.
Re:GUILTY plea, not an ALFORD plea. (Score:4, Insightful)
Repeat after me: THIS IS NOT A NORMAL CRIMINAL CASE.
Because seven years is better than Gitmo? (Score:4, Insightful)
Quoting from the [oft referenced here but should be re-read. If you can read it without fear, why?] article on Why the Lackawanna 6 pled guilty [washingtonpost.com]:
Yup, thats the system I learned about in civics class:The government can choose to give you access to the Bill of Rights unless it really need you to be guilty. In that case the Posse'll just come on by to take you away. Oh, and when the BoR says that "persons" get these rights they really meant "upstanding uncriminal citizens-by-birth and taxpayers" so it doesn't apply to YOU.
Can some biologist please, PLEASE gene-mod a frog so that it'll actually hang out in ever-warming water so that I can use that cliched, false but I still want to use it proverbial frog in a pot analogy now?
killing the patient in order to save him (Score:5, Insightful)
Plea bargains are a travesty of justice. Telling someone "we can prosecute you for a crime on which there is the death penalty, or you can plead guilty to a lesser charge" creates a grave risk of making the innocent plead guilty. This is really not all that different from the interrogation and torture techniques used by the inquisition or totalitarian governments. Furthermore, it allows the guilty to get away with lesser charges.
I think the utilitarian argument for these kinds of arrangements doesn't work: no matter how many criminals we catch through plea bargains or how many crimes we prevent, the cost of such arrangements--sacrificing a fair trial and a thorough, public examination of the charges and evidence--is just too high. Plea bargains are killing the patient in order to save him.
"You and the others in the group were prepared to take up arms, and die as martyrs if necessary, to defend the Taliban. Is this true?" U.S. District Judge Robert E. Jones asked Hawash during the hearing.
This, too, is rather chilling. It's not that conspiracy might not be a prosecutable crime under some circumstances, and maybe this is one of them. But in this phrasing, he didn't actually admit to doing anything, he was just "prepared to do" something.
Put the US Government on Trial too, eh? (Score:5, Insightful)
I mean, it's a well known fact that the US can never do any wrong- so, why is this guy going to jail?
Perhaps we should put this retarded administration on trial, along with the schmucks in previous administrations who thought it was a good idea to put a bunch of folks through Terrorism for Dummies, CIA Edition. Hell, perhaps we could even go so far as to look at our current actions- the CIA sponsors guerilla training like that given to our buddie Osama in a number of countries. You see, when the US wants something from some un-developed nationn we train a bunch of locals to despose the current dictator and put one in that is more to our liking... It's usually about getting some resource that the other guy didn't feel like sharing. Oil? COULDN'T BE!
USA! USA! USA!
I am leaving the US (Score:5, Interesting)
Feds Coerce Guilty Pleas (Score:4, Insightful)
We have laws in this country to punish treason, conspiracy, or any other crime these men committed. But citizens charged with those crimes have rights, like the right to be convicted by the government's evidence. So far, this administration has been unwilling to take the chance of letting a defendant exercise those rights.
Re:Remember when.. (Score:5, Insightful)
They still were. Them happening to be right about him being a criminal doesn't excuse it. If you have all kinds of secrets from the people who are supposed to ostensibly be your boss (We, the people, remember?) you have to expect them to get really cranky and upset with you. The FBI had no business being so secretive about it all.
Re:Remember when.. (Score:5, Insightful)
All that said, there's nothing for it but to accept the plea as presented until such a time as Mike recants it. And if he'd been successful, and caught on the field of battle, he would deserve having a book thrown at him as much as John Walker Lindh. But having failed at that, I think it's outrageous that he was facing the same or greater sentence than Lindh himself (20 years).
Re:Remember when.. (Score:4, Insightful)
I'm sure you'll change your tone if the government decides to 'own' you.
Re:Remember when.. (Score:4, Informative)
No.
"Innocent until proven guilty" is an addage that is appropriate when there is not any evidence available to support a charge.
"An adage" is a very peculiar way of describing the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States, the Supreme Law of the Land.
It has come time, imho, that combating terrorism has got to involve more prevention than reaction
The entire modern system of justice rests on the pillar of adjudication. Take that away and you have a mockery.
Re:Remember when.. (Score:3, Informative)
I'm not saying that this is the case here (in fact, it doesn't look like it at all) but it does happen, and I think it's one of the larger flaws in our justice system.
Re:Remember when.. (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Remember when.. (Score:5, Insightful)
Remember when the Feds snatching this guy from Intel was a big deal here at /.? When we all thought that the FBI was overstepping their bounds? When we all thought that they were wrong; that an Intel engineer couldn't possibly be guilty?
You're not a lawyer, and niether am I, but I think it should be noted that in the US _justice_ system, regardless of innocence or guilt, a plea bargain is often going to be tempting in proportion to how likely you are to win a case (your legal re$ources vs. theirs). Really, as I recall (I have not RTFA, of course!) he was otherwise facing something like ten times this to life. What would you do, even if innocent?
Re:Remember when.. (Score:5, Insightful)
And it does happen. People confess to crimes they didn't commit, often because the risk of being executed otherwise is too great. In return for a confession to lesser crimes than in the original accusation, government prosecutors will seek a less harsh sentence.
Due process exists for other reasons as well; if we go around imprisoning people for years before trial, you're right, there is no excessive penalty for those eventually sentenced to more time than served waiting for a trial. But all of the others who are eventually found innocent will have served time for no reason but your willingness to ignore their plight.
Re:Remember when.. (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Remember when.. (Score:5, Interesting)
The exact same way Joe McCarthy got so many "communists" to testify against each other.
Re:Remember when.. (Score:3, Insightful)
The problem now is that we'll never know whether he's actually guilty, or whether he was forced into the plea. You can hope that he was, indeed, guilty, and that the FBI was quite right in bending the Constitution to keep him around until he finally admitted it. Or you c
The FBI --DID-- overstep their bounds (Score:5, Insightful)
They still DID overstep their bounds. We have some laws in this country which provide protection to citizens from potential abuse of power by law enforcement. Such as locking someone up for weeks without pressing charges, denying them access to a lawyer, etc. There's also unreasonable punishment- I'd say spiriting someone off and denying you've done so to their family etc certainly qualifies.
Police are required to file charges within a certain, rather short period of time(24 hours? I forget), or let you go- one or the other. You can't just lock someone up, and THEN go looking for evidence of a crime; you have to FIRST find the evidence, THEN arrest them and THEN charge them with a crime.
I don't care if he was guilty- their actions are improper, unjust, and remind me more of, say, dictatorships and communist governments than the country that supposedly leads the "free world". Inefficiency in law enforcement is the price we pay for our freedom, rights, and protections. When we throw any of the three out the window, what's left to protect? One only need to look as far as 1980's eastern germany to see what road we are headed towards.
Re:The FBI --DID-- overstep their bounds (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:It's fucking war you stupid MONKEY. (Score:5, Insightful)
There's a fine line between cracking down on terrorism, and terrorising the citizens to crack down on terrorism.
Re:Funny. (Score:3, Insightful)
That IS funny, isn't it? But, Fox News couldn't possibly be being influenced by large corporations or politicians. They're a fair and balanced news source, they say so themselves!
Re:Funny. (Score:5, Insightful)
Note Intel Corp., where he worked.
Get your facts right. They report you discredit with FUD
Try again, this time think a bit (Score:5, Insightful)
The problem with the Hawash case was never his guilt or innosence, but the whole issue of how he was arrested in the first place.
Hawash was secretly arrested. With a secret warrent. Based on secret evidence. The feds wouldn't even admit that they had arrested him until eleven days had passed. He was not charged with a crime until he had been held for more than two months.
The Constitution specifically states that people get speedy trials. The police are not allowed to arrest people and hold them without pressing charges. That is one of the main things that's wrong with communist nations like China and Cuba. The whole idea of "find charges, then arrest" is central to real justice. "Arrest, then make up charges" is a sure sign of Stalin and his ilk.
Re:Try again your wrong (Score:5, Insightful)
Wake up. There is such a thing as the outside world, and whether you like it or not it isn't part of any society, it just is regardless of what influence one person has on another.
I don't want a paradise on Earth. I want a place where I can live and learn things you'll never get trained or taught to do or understand. I want a place where I can test the world to see what's true and what isn't for myself. I exist dammit. I'm not just taking up space. I am. Therefore I will think. Therefore I will not be molded without prior agreement. As if Lieberman will get elected in 2004. HA!
Re:This is scarey (Score:3, Insightful)
When he decided to aid the Taliban, did he bother to publically declare that he had changed his allegiance? No!
If he had been born a US citizen, I'd cut him some slack and merely imprison him for the duration of hostilities. As a naturalized citizen, he deserves either deportation or more jail time for l
Naturalized Citizen... (Score:3, Interesting)
Woah, first off I'm sure he gave his pledge of allegiance honestly. The USA was a very different country 14 years ago. It was a country where we tried and convicted Americans that promoted terrorsism like John Poindexter and Oliver North. Now one of those traitors is heading up
Comment removed (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:US supported the Taliban too (Score:5, Informative)
It is true that the CIA supported the Afghani mujahideen in the 80's. If you're interested, the word "mujahideen" is of an Arabic base and comes from the three letter radical j-h-d, with a rough meaning of struggle (one meaning of jihad is, literally, to struggle). A mujahid is someone who struggles/practices jihad. Mujahideen is the plural.
Anyway, off that tangent. Yes, the CIA funded Afghan mujahideen/freedom fighters in the 1980's. There was an Afghan govt later formed of those same mujahideen. It was not however, until 1996 that the Taleban seized Kabul and ousted the former Mujahideen govt.
Incidentally, Taleban comes from the Arabic radical t-l-b. A Talib is a student. Taliban, in pashto means students. The Taleban are the products of radical (and backwards!) madrasahs, religious schools, many of them in Pakistan. The allegation that the CIA funded the Taleban is totally incorrect. There were no doubt American arms under Taleban control, but you must remember that warlordism in Afghanistan is nothing new. You can go back thousands of years and little in Afghanistan has changed. Alexander the Great encountered very fierce resistance on his way to Central Asia. Warlordism and yet another meltdown of Afghan society in the 90's brought about the Taleban, NOT American support.
Re:I have never (Score:3, Insightful)
I'm not saying that America is a tyrannical dictatorship - I'll leave that as an e
Hogwash on Hawash (Score:5, Insightful)
Whoa there! Aren't you the same person who played Thoreau [slashdot.org] in a different thread?
It's an open secret of law that innocent people plead guilty all the time. Consider, for example, the recent furor in Tulia, TX, where a police source went bad and turned in dozens of innocent people on drug distribution charges. Those people -- uniformly poor and African-American -- chose almost to the one to plead guilty to lesser charges. Governor Rick Perry is currently reviewing papers to dismiss all charges and convictions in that case.
Likewise, in Dallas, the local police department has come under intense fire for planting fake drugs on poor Latino residents, many of whom accepted plea bargains (usually due to inattentive defense counsel, a real problem down this way). Because evidence was moved upwards into the federal courts, even those cases are now under review as judges seek to determine which defendants were truly innocent of charges.
Then there are those quasi-Art. III courts, such as the IRS and immigration courts, where people frequently accept deals even though they may not be guilty at all.
Why do people do this? Simple: it takes time and money to fight in court. If you're hauled in front of an IRS judge on charges you're innocent of, you may still rationally accept a lesser penalty knowing that it's less money than hiring an experienced tax attorney. (I've got a former IRS prosecutor as a friend who quite cheerfully explains every trick up that particular profession's sleeve.) If you're poor, a minority, or an immigrant resident, you may not have the resources or even the knowledge necessary to fight a criminal charge when it comes down the pipe; your defense counsel, who's either a private attorney getting less than scale for his time on your case, or a public defender who has literally hundreds of other cases sitting on his desk, has no incentive to spend more time than is absolutely necessary on your case -- and cutting a deal with the prosecutor is the fastest way to dispose of a pending case.
Now, this doesn't obviate the fact that Hawash doesn't seem to be an innocent party. He's admitted to conspiracy to provide material support of a foreign terrorist organization, starting on October 20, 2001, two years after the official designation of the Taliban as an FTO and following the declaration of hostilities against the Taliban by the United States.
The information set out in the plea arrangement is pretty precise regarding his actions, and the end result is not particularly favorable for Hawash -- if the judge accepts the sentencing level set out in the agreement (and there's no guarantee he or she won't apply an upward departure), Hawash gets a minimum sentence of over eight years. Now, the prosecutors certainly dangled a much harsher sentence over his head, but the specifics in the agreement (such as Hawash going to China and attempting to cross the border into Afghanistan) are precise, and serious, enough that I can't see him being truly innocent in this case.
Nonetheless, just as I can remain conservative while damning every sentence from an Ann Coulter or Michael Savage, I can affirm my belief in Hawash's guilt while saying of your statement: wrong, wrong, naive, and wrong.
That's really discusting. (Score:4, Insightful)
You know, it's really sick that we make jokes like this. The constitution outlaws 'cruel and unusual punishment' but the threat of being corn holed is actively used as a deterrent, and not much is done to prevent it. I think homosexual rape probably qualifies as 'cruel and unusual'
Re:That's really discusting. (Score:3, Interesting)
There was a bill called the Prison Rape Reduction Act [aclu.org] put before congress, and I assume it was passed because it was jointly introduced. Whether the facilities respect it is another matter... they know what they're doing when they place new prisoners with rapists.
Re:Who's next? (Score:4, Informative)
Please, read something other than anti-Bush screeds before you post.