1. List and rank the seriousness of the restrictions placed on these arrested individuals’ freedom and rights. Explain your ranking.
1. The most serious restriction was concerning Salam Achou’s husband whose visa expired and was held for more than a week without Salam finding out where he was. It was the most serious restriction placed on ones freedom and rights since it did not appear that Salam’s husband was a risk to the United States and that he had done was not renew his visa.
2. The second most serious restriction was when Albader Al-Hazmi was not able to contact his lawyer until six day later since he was material witness. Since he was not a suspect, it was wrong that they did not permit him to contact a lawyer for several days. It would not have been wrong if they had him attend secret meetings and hearings as long as he was able to get counsel from his lawyer.
3. I do not feel that the Orlando man who was a material witness and was flown around in secret to attend secret meetings and hearings had his rights’ violated. Since the man may have had pertinent information for the United States, all the things done was necessary for national security. However, I feel that he should not have been placed in jail for three days since he was not a suspect but rather a witness.
4. The two men who overstayed their visas should not have been detained for ten days. Although I do not object to their detention since they overstayed their visas and were both male neighbors and their arrest done for the sake of national security.
5. The least serious restriction was on Hussein al-Attas who was former roommate of a suspected terrorist and was detained for visa problems. Although they were wrong by not allowing al-Attas to receive counsel from a lawyer, their actions to detain al-Attas were justified since they were doing it for national security. Since al-Attas was a former roommate of suspected terrorist and had visa problems it indicated that al-Attas may have been involved with the tragedy at the World Trade Center.
2. Summarize the points and arguments of the lawyers and journalists. Which do you agree with? Why? Which do you disagree with? Why? The people such as Jeanne Butterfield of the American Immigration Lawyers Association, and other lawyers and legal scholars believe that those detained were not permitted to seek counsel and were held by the government on minor charges not relevant what they were arrested for. While others such as Susan Dryden of the Justice Department and Russ Bergeron of the Immigration and Naturalization Service informed those that were detained that they could receive counsel and were given a list of lawyers and support organizations. The Attorney General John Ashcroft reported that the people who were being detained for violating various immigration laws and other misdemeanors. Still others such as a former Deputy Attorney General, Beth Wilkinson, reporters of the Washington Post and other reporters believed that the wide scale detention of suspect and witnesses is justifiable since their detentions are being used to investigate a huge case. I agree with Beth Wilkinson because I feel that the government is justified to detain and arrest individuals who they believe may have information concerning their investigation. As along as the government believed that those detained have information pertinent toward national security, they should be allowed to detain them. However, at the same time, I believe that they should allow the suspects and the witnesses to be able to receive…