Quote:
Originally posted by JR@Jun 30 2005, 08:04 PM
WHAT?
you said:
"The only thing the government has stated publicly is that visiting web sites and chat boards makes him a terrorist."
where exactly did you find this statement? going to his immigration fraud hearing and stating that he is a risk to homeland security is not the same as saying "he went to a message board... he is a terrorist". what about due process? the legal system. how does "grand jury" = "secret charges"
maybe they are "secret charges" because in actuality it is just a bullshit remark made by an attorney??
you are quoting a the defendants attorney who is responding to allegations made at a immigration hearing for immigration fraud. funny no one can quote the statements of the FBI being that they attorney would certainly have records of this - if the FBI did in fact make baseless accusations. why paraphrase?
come on PD, you are better than this. did Bush get you that wound up yesterday?
|
This doesn't have a thing to do with Bush's screech the other day.
Read the article.
The Knight-Ridder news service is the one who stated "The government has presented secret evidence at his deportation hearings to show that he is a threat to national security."
Given that they attribute many other statements to his attorney, I can only assume that a) they have sources which have told them that, or
as representatives of the biased liberal media, they are misrepresenting the truth to make the government look bad.
Read the article.
Aside from the immigration issues and the claim that terrorists often represent themselves as religious converts making the career change to author, the only public disclosures revealed in the article is the FBI claim that surfing "terrorist Web sites and visited terrorist chat rooms" = "threat to national security," and, of course, the "secret evidence ... that he is a threat to national security."
Read the article, and read what I posted.
I made no reference to secret charges - I did quote Knight-Ridder's assertion that secret
evidence was presented. There is no reference to a grand jury anywhere in the article or any of my posts. The article by Knight-Ridder states that "
immigration judge Robert Newberry declared 'When taken altogether, the evidence establishes respondent presents a substantial risk to the national security of the United States...' " I added emphasis to "immigration" because there are very different rules for those procedings, and what is normally understood to as "due process" doesn't really apply.
This isn't some defense of the poor oppressed immigrant. I would be just as uncomfortable with this kind of court proceeding if they were prosecuting a born-again gun-running Nazi skinhead.
Now, if they wanted to disarm and deport all the born-again gun-running Nazi skinheads to a Gitmo-like facility in Compton ...