Britain - BBC Shills for America's Attackers

The BBC often openly attacks the US, see The Case Against the BBC, but sometimes they schill for others who openly attack America. Take this BBC article for example.

As you read try and keep in mind the backdrop for what was happening in America at the time. There had been a co-ordinated terrorist attack which had killed over 3000 innocent Americans on American soil, something that had never happened before. There were two attacks on the Twin Towers, one on the Pentagon and one whose target is thought to have been the White House. So, the terrorists were targeting the financial, military and political heart of America, right on American soil. Were there other targets?

Also bear in mind that we are talking about 70 men out of a population of 300 million and while we do not want to see one persons rights violated, given the circumstances of the times, this is truly a small number.

The BBC does not provide a direct link to the report, you'll see why in a moment, but they do provide a link to Human Rights Watch so you can read the report yourself, which you should. You can read their summary here.

HRW's report is full of wild allegations designed to stir up anti-American sentiment in the Muslim community and yet HRW provides no evidence, other than the suspects testimony, that anything illegal occurred.

Congress enacted the current material witness law in 1984 to enable the government, in narrow circumstances, to secure the testimony of witnesses who might otherwise flee to avoid testifying in a criminal proceeding. If a court agrees that an individual has information "material" to a criminal proceeding and will likely flee if subpoenaed, the witness can be locked up, but, in theory, only for as long as is necessary to have him testify or be deposed.

So, these men were held, legally, in case they would flee and a court agreed that they had material information.

The US indefinitely detained some 70 Muslim men after the 11 September attacks on baseless accusations of terrorist links, US rights bodies say.

Note the BBC repeat HRW's claim that the accusations were baseless. Buried in paragraph 17 of the summary we are told this:

Seven were charged with providing material support to terrorist organizations; as of May 2005, four had been convicted, and the other three were awaiting trial.

Obviously since they were convicted, the accusations were not baseless and 10% of these men were involved in terrorism in some way.

And I guess it depends on your definitionion of what "indefinitely" is, for HRW tells us that:

One-third of the seventy post-September 11 material witnesses we identified were incarcerated for at least two months. Some endured imprisonment for more than six months, and one witness spent more than a year in prison.

Not quite indefinte now is it? Besides, what does the law say?

The material witness law does not specify how long a witness may be incarcerated before being presented in a criminal proceeding or released.

So, once again we are told the government was acting legally.

Then we are told:

Another twenty witnesses were charged with non-terrorist-related crimes, such as bank or credit card fraud or making false statements to the FBI.

HRW convienently fails to tell us how many were convicted.

Then there is this:

Twenty-four were deported.

Are some of the twenty charged with non terrorists charges in this twenty four or is this on top of the twenty? Since these are two distinct statements, I'd say they are on top of the twenty. Otherwise, HRW would have said something like, "of the 24 deported, 20 had been charged with...."

Finally,

Two of the seventy were designated "enemy combatants"

HRW's report goes on to hyperventilate over the way the prisoners were arrested, questioned and detained. They were arrested at gunpoint and handcuffed, all standard procedure. They were asked tough questions and detained in tough conditions, all standard procedure. No one was tortured. And look at how many were deported, charged and convicted, four on terrorism charges and three awaiting trial.

The left are still living in a pre 9/11 world as HRW admits.

The Department of Justice has contended that grand jury rules require such secrecy. However, prior to September 11, the Justice Department did not make such a contention, detention hearings for federal material witnesses in grand jury proceedings were typically public.

That's because things changed on 9/11 and you better wake up to that fact, if you want to continue to live in Kansas Dorothy.

UPDATE

And as in the case of the bogus Koran story, this story is already being used to fan the flames of anti-Americanism in the Muslim world. See here and here.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------