Jailed Without Charges

The Fishing Geek · 04-03-2003, 05:23 PM

On March 20th, Mike Hawash was taken into custody by Federal agents, and currently sits in solitary confinement in a Federal prision in Sheridan, Oregon. He is not charged with anything, and the only statement from the Feds is that he is a "material witness".

Mike has been in America for 20 years, and a citizen for 14 years. He is married and has three kids, and works for Intel. He occasionally gets to talk to his wife, but otherwise he sits in prison, waiting. All documents relating to the case are under a "gag order", so there is no further information.

He is a US citizen whose rights are being trampled. For more information about Mike, click here.

El Shaddai · 04-03-2003, 05:31 PM

TFG- Have you ever stopped to consider there may be more to the situation than you are aware of? Have you been made aware of the reasoning behind this action? Arrest warrants and search warrants require some basis...I have no idea of this man's innocence or guilt, but before you rush to judgement, maybe you ought to think a little harder.

The Fishing Geek · 04-03-2003, 05:42 PM

Maybe so. The information is on his site. Judge for yourself.

Kruechief · 04-03-2003, 05:52 PM

In its 1966 decision, the Supreme Court said that suspects being questioned by the police were in a vulnerable position, and that if the suspect didn't know his rights, he was at risk of having those rights violated. Therefore, the Court required that the police inform suspects in custody that they possessed the following rights (these rights had been established in earlier Supreme Court decisions): (a) the right to remain silent, with the caution that whatever the suspect said could be used against him in court; (b) the right to have a lawyer present during the interrogation; and (c) the right to have a lawyer appointed for him if he couldn't afford one.

If his attorney can't make any progress then that should tell you that the awaiting fall out will be heavy. Or his attorney sucks.

Krue

El Shaddai · 04-03-2003, 06:17 PM

The problem with validating your position by saying "look at his site" and "judge for yourself" is that the site only provides one side of the equation. Furthermore, the text provided may be completely true or false. Any factual argument needs a factual premise; a false premise typically leads to false conclusions.

Existentialism in its purest form is very dangerous and certainly needs to be challenged at every turn. Nothing personal....you just seem to lean that way.

Kruechief · 04-03-2003, 06:23 PM

Ya, what he said! :tongue:

Krue

The Fishing Geek · 04-03-2003, 06:45 PM

As soon as the Feds come out with "...the rest of the story" I will be one of the first to read it.

El Shaddai · 04-03-2003, 06:57 PM

TFG- Your proposal to "be the first one" to read the Feds side is very compelling. Now, if you are truly waiting for all the facts before rendering your final position perhaps you ought to publicly recant your inital post and remove the thumbs down.

The Fishing Geek · 04-03-2003, 07:01 PM

Thanks for the offer, but I'm fully capable of having an opinion at this point.

El Shaddai · 04-03-2003, 07:10 PM

My point exactly. Regardless of your obvious haste and misguided position, you do not have the courage to be honest with yourself or the others on this board.

A couple of months ago, Silver Hilton made some statements that were clearly incorrect. He vigorously defended them. In this forum I "dissected" the falseness and provided the truth. To his credit, he publicly acknwoledged his error and although we did not completely agree, I respect his commitment to honesty and openness.

Quite obviously, you are more interested in saying a lot of nothing and making useless chatter vs. having an honest exchange of ideas. When you are a bit more worthy, we can continue the dance.

True · 04-03-2003, 07:13 PM

El Shaddai,
I would think that if someone in your family were detained and you didn't get the whole story as to why they were being detained you would be a little bit wary of what your government was doing, wouldn't you? I agree that we need to hear the other side as well but even Mr. Hawash, or someone he associates with, would know that he should have some type of representation.

Why is our government doing this to him? Are we going to keep going until we have another scene from "The Seige" with Bruce Willis and Denzel Washington where everyone who was Arab-American or of that descent was rounded up and incarcerated unfairly? Naw! Our government wouldn't do that, would they? Oh, yeah. It already happened once during WWII with the Japanese-Americans, didn't it?

Well, so long as you aren't in the minority you don't have to worry about too much.

Have we prosecuted the CEOs of the companies that sold parts or missle information to the Chinese, Iraq and North Korea? They seem to have gotten off with a slap on the wrist by pleading ignorance. I'm sure the that the families of the dead and missing Marines can sleep better knowing that...

True

fishwhenican · 04-03-2003, 07:16 PM

While I rarely agree with The Geek, I have an extreme amount of distrust for the Feds. When they say "trust me" RUN!!!!! You always hear the stories and say how could that be true? Personal experience tells me that a lot of them are true.

The Fishing Geek · 04-03-2003, 07:20 PM

El Shaddai:

Part of my job in the LIG forums is to stimulate debate on topics. I found this topic interesting, I posted it, and I said how I felt about it. Why must you continue to attack my character?

If you would read my comments thus far, you will see that I have acknowledged that I will be eager to follow this story as it evolves, and that maybe there is good reason to hold him. Instead, you are dead-set on presenting a holier-than-thou personna (fitting for the name, really).

So, if you want to debate the topics then we will dance. Otherwise, have a good day.

corrirod · 04-03-2003, 07:35 PM

TFG,

Quote:

He is a US citizen whose rights are being trampled

That didn't sound very objective to me. Spurring debate is one thing, but your opening post sounded more like a recruitment for crucifying the federal government.

The Fishing Geek · 04-03-2003, 07:37 PM

I didn't say that I was being objective. I said I posted the topic, and said what I thought of it. Just because I'm a moderator doesn't mean that I am without opinion, or that I cannot post said opinion.

True · 04-03-2003, 07:39 PM

Corrirod,

What would you say were done to his rights? Neatly pressed? Bumped into? Slightly dented?

True

Kruechief · 04-03-2003, 07:50 PM

True,

What if it turns out that this is some deeply planted terrorist who has a dirty bomb in a hidden location?

Krue

STGRule · 04-03-2003, 07:51 PM

A question (because I don't know the answer). Don't they have to charge you with something when you are arrested? I might be able to understand a couple hours without charges, but this? I honestly thought they had to charge you to hold you.
Krue: What if he doesn't?

[ 04-03-2003, 08:52 PM: Message edited by: STGRule ]

The Fishing Geek · 04-03-2003, 07:53 PM

Technically he's not arrested. He's detained as a "material witness". With that they can hold him indefinitely, without charge.

True · 04-03-2003, 07:55 PM

What if indeed. I can't make a decision based on "What ifs." You either show me the proof or let him go. Do you know something that I don't?

True

STGRule · 04-03-2003, 08:03 PM

Okay,next question, how is it possible with all the laws we have that they can legally "detain" somebody for more than a few hours? That seems like an awfully large loophole to still exist.

crabbait · 04-03-2003, 08:06 PM

STG - I don't believe he has been arrested....just "detained" as a material witness. No charges, no arrest, no Miranda rights violation. Just "detained". I have seen this happen before.

EL Shaddai - Calling someone's courage into question and saying that they are "saying a lot of nothing and making useless chatter" or are not "worthy" enough are all forms of personal attack. Not good. See the Acceptable Use Policy, please.

Show where Geek is in error or move on. You are in no position to judge his courage or his worthiness.

speyfly · 04-03-2003, 08:07 PM

STG, you need to research the Patriot Act. When you get done with that one then research the sequel "Patriot Act II" coming to a country near you. I think you will find the answers you're looking for.

Straydog · 04-03-2003, 09:56 PM

This administration will go to war on less than solid legal grounds, you think a silly little thing like the rights of one individual means anything?

Cool Texan · 04-03-2003, 10:11 PM

Strangely, and not to stir anything up, I think I support what El Shaddai is saying.

When I first heard of this story, my initial thought was "there has to be more to the story....they wouldnt hold him if there wasnt something odd going on, so....."

So basically, I think its wrong to profess this persons guilt or innocence without all of the facts, which none of us have.

Just expressing an opinion.

Kruechief · 04-04-2003, 06:17 AM

Crabbait,

Is this what you are talking about

Quote:

Regardless of your obvious haste and misguided position, you do not have the courage to be honest with yourself or the others on this board.

? And this

Quote:

Quite obviously, you are more interested in saying a lot of nothing and making useless chatter vs. having an honest exchange of ideas. When you are a bit more worthy, we can continue the dance.

?

Posted by TFG:

Quote:

Just because I'm a moderator doesn't mean that I am without opinion, or that I cannot post said opinion.

True, true.

Krue

[ 04-04-2003, 08:07 AM: Message edited by: kruechief ]

Straydog · 04-04-2003, 06:32 AM

Krue,

Looks like you get it.

Other than trying to get to the head of the class, what might be your point? :whazzup:

(edit) Wait a minute!! I reread and found a typo.(THG, rather than TFG) Looks like you will have to settle for the second row rather than head of the class. Better luck next time!

[ 04-04-2003, 07:34 AM: Message edited by: Straydog ]

Hogmaster · 04-04-2003, 06:43 AM

A bit more information, which is not available on the web site:

From today's Oregonian story by Mark Larabee -

"The Oregonian reported on March 21 that Hawash and his wife had given about $10,000 to an organization that is being investigated for alledgedly contributing to terrorist causes"

and:

"Hawash's donations three years ago to Illinois-based Global Relief Foundation were detailed in the charity's tax returns. The foundation has been shut down by federal agents who say some of the money was used to support terrorist activities."

Straydog · 04-04-2003, 06:53 AM

That does indeed shed a different light on the situation.

The Fishing Geek · 04-04-2003, 06:59 AM

While my yearly tax bill does the same thing as what Hogmaster detailed above, I do see where a non-governmental body doing the same thing, and then donating to that cause, would be cause for concern.

Kruechief · 04-04-2003, 07:00 AM

SD,

Ok, one typo :whazzup:

Stupid arthritis

Krue

The Fishing Geek · 04-04-2003, 07:04 AM

The H is two characters over from the F. Missed by a wide margin.

Straydog · 04-04-2003, 07:10 AM

K,

What? Arthritis makes it so you can't proof read?? :grin:

Kruechief · 04-04-2003, 07:10 AM

Glad to see you are back Geek! :grin:

Kru e

Kruechief · 04-04-2003, 07:13 AM

No, over confidence is the problem! :tongue:

A prior history of all body parts functioning has conditioned my brain to relax on the physical monitoring.

K r ue

The Fishing Geek · 04-04-2003, 07:15 AM

Yeah, it's nice to be able to reminisce about how things used to be, eh Krue? :grin:

Straydog · 04-04-2003, 07:23 AM

Krue,

Over confidence........... hhhhmm, seems I have been told I have been inflicted with this as well. I can relate.

Kruechief · 04-04-2003, 07:23 AM

Yepper,

Bruce and boys made a million singing about "them glory days".

Krue :grin:

corrirod · 04-04-2003, 07:53 AM

What? No conspiracy theory? You mean the government might have had legitimate reason to detain him? That's proposterous! I thought the government was only out to pin the honest man! Well I'm sure there's still a government lie in there somewhere. Let's keep protesting anyway!

DanS · 04-04-2003, 08:03 AM

Well, how long do you figure they need to charge him?

Man, some of you guys are WAY more trusting of the Feds than I am. What are you going to say when they decide to detain YOU for weeks without charges being filed?

Won't happen to you? Maybe not, but the fact that it COULD happen to you should be very unsettling.

[ 04-04-2003, 09:09 AM: Message edited by: DanS ]

OceanBlue · 04-04-2003, 08:10 AM

I'm not gonna get into whether it is right or wrong that he is being "detained" without being charged. Sucks to be him and his family. I guess this is as good a reason as any to be very careful about the organizations you donate $$ to? I gotta think that there's more that we know.

How well do you really know someone? I remember the shock, dismay and disbelief over the man who killed his wife and then set fire to his house to try and cover it up. I friend of mine had been close with the couple. She couldn't believe it... and probably still doesn't, despite the irrefutable evidence that he did it.

Anyway, really the only reason I started this reply was to say that while this man may have worked for Intel, he is not an Intel employee. (which may have been interpreted from the original statement that he "works for Intel") Mr. Hawash is a contractor.

[ 04-04-2003, 09:12 AM: Message edited by: Pilar's Mate ]

corrirod · 04-04-2003, 08:15 AM

Hahahaha....you are too much Dan.

Do you really feel that the government is out to get you?

Do you really think they PLAN how their going to pin the honest guy? What motivation would they have to do that? Do you feel they have some sort of quota to fill? Perhaps the fed that nabbed him was only 1 arrest short of a new toaster?

Believe it or not, if they detain or imprison you, it's because they think you did something wrong!

I actually feel somewhat concerned for you. It has to be a horrible feeling to go thru life always thinking you could be falsely incriminated at any moment. Maybe I'm just naive but I think that if I don't do anything wrong I should have no fear of being arrested.

True · 04-04-2003, 08:30 AM

Nobody even answered my questions... :whazzup:

True

DanS · 04-04-2003, 08:34 AM

Quote:

Maybe I'm just naive

There's no maybe about it.

Laugh at yourself, rod. You trust the government.

[ 04-04-2003, 09:35 AM: Message edited by: DanS ]

Cool Texan · 04-04-2003, 08:35 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by True:
Nobody even answered my questions... :whazzup:

True

What were your questions??

corrirod · 04-04-2003, 08:43 AM

Be careful Dan, I'm sure the feds have Ifish tapped and they will no doubt try to falsely imprison you.

DanS · 04-04-2003, 08:50 AM

Actually, the Feds DO monitor millions of websites for juicy keywords to appear.

I'm sure I'm a target now.....better get out the tinfoil hat. Either that or I could just get a lobotomy and not worry what the government is up to.

Cool Texan · 04-04-2003, 08:57 AM

Yeah, the Feds probably do monitor web content, phone calls, financial transactions, etc. Seeing as how I do nothing illegal, other than speeding, I'm not concerned about it. I have nothing to hide.

corrirod · 04-04-2003, 08:58 AM

True,

Quote:

we need to hear the other side as well but even Mr. Hawash, or someone he associates with, would know that he should have some type of representation

How do you know he doesn't have representation, you still don't know the whole story?

Quote:

Why is our government doing this to him?

We still don't have the whole story.

Quote:

Are we going to keep going until we have another scene from "The Seige" with Bruce Willis and Denzel Washington where everyone who was Arab-American or of that descent was rounded up and incarcerated unfairly?

No. Are Arab-Americans going to be questioned about their dealings here in the U.S.? Of course. Should they be afraid of being incarserated? Only if they did something wrong.

Quote:

Well, so long as you aren't in the minority you don't have to worry about too much.

No. So long as you're not guilty you don't have to worry.

Quote:

Have we prosecuted the CEOs of the companies that sold parts or missle information to the Chinese, Iraq and North Korea?

Yes. The ones that were PROVEN GUILTY were prosecuted. The fact you think their sentences were lite is your opinion.

Quote:

What would you say were done to his rights? Neatly pressed? Bumped into? Slightly dented?

You answered this one yourself, we don't know the whole story. We have no idea if his rights were violated.

Quote:

What if indeed. I can't make a decision based on "What ifs." You either show me the proof or let him go. Do you know something that I don't?

You don't know anything and neither do I. We have to wait to find out. And as far as them showing YOU the proof, they don't have to show YOU anything, you're not his attorney.

Quote:

Nobody even answered my questions...

You're questions are all based on information none of us have, that's why nobody answered your questions.

True · 04-04-2003, 09:01 AM

Ah! I see Corrirod jumped in before I could reply to Cool Texan.

Here's another one for anyone out there...what's the difference between "detaining" and "arresting"? I would think that they are both the same becaue you can't go where you want to go, someone's keeping you from being where you want to be.

And for Corrirod (just to keep him on his toes) Where does innocent until proven guilty factor in? Was a bail set or posted? and... Do you have a credible source that would show us how the CEOs were punished? Thanking you in advance.

Cool Texan, I agree with you on not making a final decision until all information is given. I've only seen some information on one side of it and very little on the other.

True

True

[ 04-04-2003, 10:09 AM: Message edited by: True ]

Cool Texan · 04-04-2003, 09:05 AM

The simple fact is, which has been repeated throughout this thread, that none of us know the full story. Therefore, to pass judgement one way or the other is a complete waste of time.

blackdog · 04-04-2003, 09:09 AM

[ 04-07-2003, 08:14 AM: Message edited by: blackdog ]

True · 04-04-2003, 09:12 AM

Blackdog,
I'd find out by hiring a private investigator and confronting her with the evidence given.

Also, instead of running away from the problem to France or Canada I would like to fix the situation here first. Only a coward would turn tail and hide from what he perceives as an injustice.

You have that "What does not kill me only makes me stronger," don't you?

True

blackdog · 04-04-2003, 09:15 AM

Yeah, but I'm not on here constantly complaining about the things our government does. I am darned happy to have the freedoms I do and realize that life's not perfect, but it's a heck of a lot prettier than some of the alternatives.

DanS · 04-04-2003, 09:20 AM

blackdog,

Learn how to make a valid argument. Since when is a wife and a government the same thing?

True · 04-04-2003, 09:20 AM

When we stop complaining is when things start to get really bad.

true

Cool Texan · 04-04-2003, 09:23 AM

And the children come out to play again....

True · 04-04-2003, 09:41 AM

CT,

What have I said that was child-like?

True

Cool Texan · 04-04-2003, 09:45 AM

Blanket statement True.

Black Dog provokes with the "wetting" and moaning comment.

You add to it with "only a coward...", a subtle jab.

Dan jumps in with "learn how to make an argument..."

Just seems like some discussions turn into the personal angles after time. I'd just rather see discussions minus the personal attacks, and with acknowledgements that we dont know everything, our opinions are JUST opinions, etc. Guess I am just looking for a civilized Friday. :grin:

(and I whole heartedly agree - crabbait)

[ 04-04-2003, 05:25 PM: Message edited by: crabbait ]

corrirod · 04-04-2003, 09:46 AM

True,

Quote:

Where does innocent until proven guilty factor in?

You'd better start a new topic on that one.

Quote:

what's the difference between "detaining" and "arresting"? I would think that they are both the same becaue you can't go where you want to go, someone's keeping you from being where you want to be.

One, arresting means they have evidence against you, detaining means they feel you may have evidence or may be somehow involved with a crime so they need your statement. Either way, a crime was committed and both words are related to finding the guilty party. Think of it this way, if you witnessed a murder on your way to work and didn't bother to talk to the police about it because you were in hurry and didn't want to be late, should the police have the right to "detain" you if they know you saw the event take place? Darn right they should.

Quote:

Was a bail set or posted? and... Do you have a credible source that would show us how the CEOs were punished?

Quite honestly I'm going off memory and don't have the time to search for sources. As I recall the reasoning for lite sentencing was due to the lack of proof by the government that these companies did in fact know these parts were being used to make "illegal" arms. The government then put in place more procedures to guard against this by creating laws to hold companies accountable for the parts they ship overseas. It's by no means perfect though because it's simply a form you send to your overseas customer asking if these parts are going to be used to manufacture weapons. What stops them from saying "no", nothing. From the governments standpoint it's a very tough thing to regulate. For instance, most guided missiles and nuclear missiles are created and deployed using computers, does this then incriminate Bill Gates? If someone buys a lighter from the local Texaco and uses it to ignite a stick of dynamite, is Texaco liable? Not sure you can ever completely cover yourself in these matters.

If I have time I'll look for a source but now is not a good time to do web searches using keywords like "missiles". Weeding thru the 18 million hits is going to take awhile if you know what I mean.