It Has Begun

[Guess Who]

Patriot Act

 

[TrueEpic08]

Why does it say indefinite when there seems to be a clear release date (when the grand jury's term expires?)

Either way, this is horrible, of course.

"May" does not equate to "definitely".

 

[The Real]

"May" does not equate to "definitely".

Fair enough, but "indefinite detention" is usually used to mean that it's potentially endless (as in immigration detention or Guantanamo,) whereas I read this to be suggesting that they will be held until the grand jury term expires at the latest.

 

[Captain Crunch]

1984 was not just a book, it's a future look at this world

 

[daze23]

Fair enough, but "indefinite detention" is usually used to mean that it's potentially endless (as in immigration detention or Guantanamo,) whereas I read this to be suggesting that they will be held until the grand jury term expires at the latest.

they're (mis)using it as a buzzword

 

[88m3]

Do you understand what the words "Transactional Immunity" mean? There's no difference between the principle outlined in what you quoted and what everyone else has been saying about how those given immunity from prosecution are exempt from the protection of the 5th Amendment.

I guess what I should have said is a from what I've seen people who are being prosecuted are rarely subpoenaed.
In NYS you can testify on your behalf infront of a Grand Jury you are allowed to plead the fifth in that process.



Muldoon & Getz

http://www.abanow.org/2010/03/faqs-about-the-grand-jury-system/

@daze23 ^ so we're on the same page

Anyways if they were subpoenaed yeah obviously they have to present themselves. It's sounds like DOJ got exactly what he wanted, they were stupid enough to give it to him on a plate. And if I'm reading this right DOJ can keep doing the same thing over and over again till they comply.

 

[daze23]

I guess what I should have said is a from what I've seen people who are being prosecuted are rarely subpoenaed.
In NYS you can testify on your behalf infront of a Grand Jury you are allowed to plead the fifth in that process.



Muldoon & Getz

FAQs about the Grand Jury System – ABANow – ABA Media Relations & Communication Services

@daze23 ^ so we're on the same page

Anyways if they were subpoenaed yeah obviously they have to present themselves. It's sounds like DA got exactly what he wanted, they were stupid enough to give it to him on a plate. And if I'm reading this right he cant keep doing the same thing over and over again till they comply.

the DA?

have you been paying attention?

 

[88m3]

the DA?

have you been paying attention?

DOJ


Happy?

 

[TrueEpic08]

they're (mis)using it as a buzzword

Are they? By a literal definition, it is indefinite: They don't know if they'll get out tomorrow, in 5 months or in 18 months when the grand jury's time is up.

And even if the grand jury's term is up, Federal Grand Juries not resubpoenaing targets isn't law. It's procedural. If they felt it necessary, they could resubpoena them for as long as they would like, as long as they feel that the target has essential evidence to an investigation. What's worse, in that case, the DoA can pursue civil contempt charges as well.

Judging from the nature of the line of grand jury questioning here, it's possible that they could end up detained until they either give up information or the grand jury(ies) just gets sick of them not cooperating.

 

[daze23]

Are they? By a literal definition, it is indefinite: They don't know if they'll get out tomorrow, in 5 months or in 18 months when the grand jury's time is up.

And even if the grand jury's term is up, Federal Grand Juries not resubpoenaing targets isn't law. It's procedural. If they felt it necessary, they could resubpoena them for as long as they would like, as long as they feel that the target has essential evidence to an investigation. What's worse, in that case, the DoA can pursue civil contempt charges as well.

Judging from the nature of the line of grand jury questioning here, it's possible that they could end up detained until they either give up information or the grand jury(ies) just gets sick of them not cooperating.

it may be that by some definition, but they're using the term to link it to other hot-topics like NDAA, Guantanamo Bay, Patriot Act, etc.

 

[CouldntBeMeTho]

the police state just ratcheted up a notch. i hope this wakes people up

 

[TrueEpic08]

it may be that by some definition, but they're using the term to link it to other hot-topics like NDAA, Guantanamo Bay, Patriot Act, etc.

And they shouldn't? I find that ridiculous.

How is this exactly different from the regimes of indefinite detention practiced within those contexts? All, this case included, are instances of a state using "extraordinary circumstances" in order to create spaces (Guantanamo, or hell, the entirety of the U.S. if you're considering the Patriot Act in a certain way) or contexts (the actual application of these acts as written) where the nature of a person and their rights within the state can be canceled and reinstated at their will according to their beliefs or even their biological makeup. With Guantanamo, Bagram, the Black Sites, etc., it was their residence, racial makeup, profile and lack of mobility which condemned their rights, natural or otherwise, to be canceled under US Federal Law (among others). Here, it's political. There may be a difference in kind, but not a radical one, more like the differences in a species of animal than a difference in, say, order.

Of course, exceptions are the nature of all laws relating to man within society, but that's a larger conversation...

 

[daze23]

And they shouldn't? I find that ridiculous.

How is this exactly different from the regimes of indefinite detention practiced within those contexts? All, this case included, are instances of a state using "extraordinary circumstances" in order to create spaces (Guantanamo, or hell, the entirety of the U.S. if you're considering the Patriot Act in a certain way) or contexts (the actual application of these acts as written) where the nature of a person and their rights within the state can be canceled and reinstated at their will according to their beliefs or even their biological makeup. With Guantanamo, Bagram, the Black Sites, etc., it was their residence, racial makeup, profile and lack of mobility which condemned their rights, natural or otherwise, to be canceled under US Federal Law (among others). Here, it's political. There may be a difference in kind, but not a radical one, more like the differences in a species of animal than a difference in, say, order.

Of course, exceptions are the nature of all laws relating to man within society, but that's a larger conversation...

I don't think the feds intended to lock them up. they wanted them to answer questions. they refused, and the cards fell. I understand there's loop-holes where the feds could conceivably drag this out longer. but I'll save my outrage about that for if it actually happens (in 18 months or whatever). as it is now, everything seems pretty routine

 

[TrueEpic08]

I don't think the feds intended to lock them up. they wanted them to answer questions. they refused, and the cards fell. I understand there's loop-holes where the feds could conceivably drag this out longer. but I'll save my outrage about that for if it actually happens (in 18 months or whatever). as it is now, everything seems pretty routine

So you would find a problem with them keeping them detained indefinitely, but no problem with the reason why they are detained indefinitely, in that it only pertains to a crime tangentially, and, according to the line of questioning and the actions of the federal agents that searched the targets' homes, concerns their political affiliations more than their relation to a crime?

And, more generally, you find no problem with an institution that so explicitly cancels its own law within a given space and context? (I'm writing this about grand juries, but I could apply this to many, many other structures of the state. Really, in making this statement, you're making a statement against the very notion of the state itself...but that's a broader discussion...)

 

[daze23]

So you would find a problem with them keeping them detained indefinitely, but no problem with the reason why they are detained indefinitely, in that it only pertains to a crime tangentially, and, according to the line of questioning and the actions of the federal agents that searched the targets' homes, concerns their political affiliations more than their relation to a crime?

And, more generally, you find no problem with an institution that so explicitly cancels its own law within a given space and context? (I'm writing this about grand juries, but I could apply this to many, many other structures of the state. Really, in making this statement, you're making a statement against the very notion of the state itself...but that's a broader discussion...)

it so explicitly cancels it's own law right there in the wording of the 5th Amendment. how I feel about that is kinda beyond the scope of the discussion I was trying to have, comrade