The Command Post - Op-Ed - The Hawash Case: What Now, Bloggers?

April 29, 2003

The Hawash Case: What Now, Bloggers?

We now know the government's view of the Mike Hawash case. It basically lays out evidence that shows he was a member of small group of Islamic-Americans who travelled to China in hopes of making their way to Afghanistan to kill American soldiers.

Bloggers (especially Bush-hating, Liberal bloggers) were quick to come to Hawash's defense and even quicker to call into question the Bush administration's efforts to curb the terror threat against the US. AG John Ashcroft (as always) was particularly targetted for scorn.

In response to the Blogger uprising in defense of Hawash, I blogged this on March 25 of this year:

Lots of attention on the Internet about Intel engineer Mike Hawash who is now in custody as a material witness (witness to what, I don't know). Hawash is a Palestinian but has been an American citizen for 15 years. He is getting alot of high-level support from the likes of Intel executives and Oregon's legislative contingent.

Many on the 'Net are using this case as a weapon in their war against Attorney General John Ashcroft, but I suggest they hold their fire. So far Ashcroft is doing very well in the courts (see the Lackawanna cases, the Florida Professor case and the recent Ujaama case).

My money is on Achcroft; betting he has a reason to hold Hawash and that it will all come out well for the AG in the end.

As for the use of "material witness" powers to hold American citizens in jail, I will (at least for now) defer to the judges of the US to determine if these powers are being abused. Until I feel otherwise, I know of no reason to believe these judges are acting in an unconstitutional manner

The reason I wrote what I wrote at the time was simply because of the facts. Ashcroft (and Bush) had a track record of making charges stick and there was no evidence to suggest that they had deviated from the plan to hold and charge guilty persons. Many writers in the Blogosphere, unfortunately, seemed to have lost their heads on this one.

I think it is about time for them to fess up to this mistake (just as many of them have had to fess up to their many other mistakes...Iraq is a quagmire, Afghanistan is a quagmire, There is no Al-Qaida/Iraq link...)

Posted By PoliticaObscura at April 29, 2003 02:27 PM | TrackBack

Comments

Hawash is a US citizen. His government has charged him with crimes. Regardless of guilt or innocence, he will have a trial. If innocent, he will leave a free citizen. If convicted he will have the right to appeal. If the government has exaggerated his threat, the case can be made. The governement will not be seeking to subject him to unnecessary cruelty, to penal amputation, or public execution by beheading. Thank goodness he is jailed in this country.

Posted by: Waka Waka at April 29, 2003 02:53 PM

"Public execution by beheading" for participating in a treasonous conspiracy has a nice ring to it.

Seriously, commiting a crime and commiting treason are two different things and should be handled differently.

Posted by: Bill at April 29, 2003 04:39 PM

It is never a mistake for people to insist that the government follow the law of the land, habeus corpus and the Constitution. The facts, whatever they may be, must be decided in a court of law. The price of freedom is eternal vigilance; pointing out that the government had detained a person without specific charges is not an error, it is a civil service. The bloggers were merely reminding us that the government is accountable to the people, that people being arrested must be charged and public trails be held.

So sorry if you think this is a "liberal" notion - actually, it's a conservative one.

Posted by: pyramid termite at April 29, 2003 05:51 PM

Pyramid, you'd be right if the facts were on your side, but they are not. The courts have upheld holding witnesses until they testify before a grand jury. What these liberals were doing was using this case to bash Ashcroft and to call him an anti-Arab racist.

Posted by: PoliticaObscura at April 29, 2003 09:21 PM

I'm liberal and have not defined a position on Hawash's innocence or used the case to berate Ashcroft. Hawash's guilt or innocence is only one issue to be resolved. My position is simply that government secrecy is dangerous to democracy.

And that's based on conversations I've had with several people who have had top-security access to government or military documents. They seem to think that three-quarters of the secret stuff is not about national security or protecting the lives of informants. It's about protecting folks from embarrassment.

It's very possible most of the secrecy is unnecessary in the Hawash case. As to 'trusting the judges' I trust only that they're human and can err. Intimidated by sociopolitical events, they may grant wider latitude to the government than is necessary. There's plenty of precedent for it.

Posted by: Cowboy Kahlil at April 30, 2003 02:58 AM

PolitcaObscura is correct. This was blogged by lefties (including some who post here) as prima facia Ashcroftian Thought Police abuse.
Yes, we all need to keep an eye on authorities. But this sounds like they were doing there jobs...something we should be glad about.
The 'before & after' photos are telling. They remind me of the face Muhammed Arafat presents to the West and the face he presents in the Mid-East. This was a guy who volunteered to go to Osama's finishing school...AFTER 9-11! All the while posing as an All-American family man.
Throw the book at him.

Posted by: Noel at April 30, 2003 10:47 PM

Nice blog.

Posted by: zip code at June 9, 2003 01:46 AM