This is the first of what appears will be many lawsuits filed by people who were arrested in the days after 9/11.

Within a week of 9/11, the US arrested over 700 people (within the USA), mostly Arabs/Muslims. Almost every one of them has since been released without being charged with anything.

This man, an Egytian, was held for almost a year. He was eventually deported after admitting to credit card fraud, as there was no evidence linking him to 9/11 ("He was cleared of allegations he had terrorist ties"). It doesn't appear that he was charged or received any punishment for the credit card fraud, other than being deported.

An excerpt from the story:

"In September, a federal judge rejected Ashcroft's attempt to block the men's lawsuit by claiming that the threat of terrorism exempts the government from following peacetime regulations.

More than 80 men were classified as suspected terrorists and held in high-security cells at the Brooklyn facility between Sept. 14, 2001, and Aug. 27, 2002.

A separate class-action lawsuit was filed in Brooklyn federal court in 2002 on behalf of hundreds of detainees in Brooklyn and New Jersey.

In that lawsuit, the Center for Constitutional Rights alleged that Ashcroft and other officials subjected prisoners to excessively harsh conditions though they had not been charged with crimes."

Wow. The "threat of terrorism exempts the government from following peacetime regulations". That from the former top cop in the US !

So, as long as there is a threat of terrorism (which there will be from now until the end of time), the US feels it can ignore it's "peacetime" regulations.

Throw out all your Constitutional Rights and civil liberties. Let the wire-tapping begin ! Illegal confinement, illegal search and seizure, torture, privacy rights, the right to be considered innocent until proven guilty, throw them all out the window as long as there is a threat of terrorism. Good-bye democracy, hello tyranny.

Former Attorney General John Ashcroft and other high-ranking administration officals were subpoenaed to appear before the court in this lawsuit. The settlement was reached suddenly just before they were supposed to appear.

Note that despite agreeing to the settlement, the US admits no wrongdoing !

Fox News, 28 Feb 2006

take the money out of their pay.

take the money out of their pay.

Make them pay their room and board .

It's not every terrorist that gets a vacation on a tropical island , with room service .

He was eventually deported after admitting to credit card fraud,

I love how you skew this in a lame-o attempt to lob a pot shot the current administration.

The story said he was deported after PLEADING GUILTY to a charge of credit card fraud. He was then deported AFTER being convicted in a court of law and serving a prison term. Source links here:

http://cryptome.quintessenz.at/mirror/s93/...d-ny-112601.htm

http://www.americas.org/item_14954

Here is a copy of the original lawsuit:

http://www.nyed.uscourts.gov/doi/4cv1409mo...Elmaghraby'

Does anyone honestly think if these 60-something pages of outrageous allegations were true, that anyone anywhere would have settled for a measley 300K?

And let's not discount the organization that the lawyer represents, one that takes cases that no one else will, usually because the case is flimsier than a cardboard box:

http://www.urbanjustice.org/ujc/staff/community.html

So let's see this situation for what it is.

You've got a lawyer with a self-serving agenda hooked up with a pissed-off, deported convict, and a government representative who decides it is easier to throw the guy a bone rather than endure a long protracted court case.

It is purely a case of economics, the US government knows it and the lawyer-with-agenda knows it. It's cheaper to settle than to do the case. The lawyer tells the client to take the 300, of which the lawyer is probably pocketing 100K easy, no fuss, no muss.

Screw watching out for the client's best interest. There is no lawyer in the world who is going to walk away from a potential 7-figure payday with matching publicity and headlines for a measley 100K out of court settlement, if there is really a case worth the paper it is printed on.

Scumbag convict. Bottom feeding lawyer. 'Nuf said.

PS.

The guy hasn't actually been paid a nickel yet. The payment is subject to another federal court approval. My guess is that the guy gets what he deserves ... jack squat!

He was eventually deported after admitting to credit card fraud,

I love how you skew this in a lame-o attempt to lob a pot shot the current administration.

The story said he was deported after PLEADING GUILTY to a charge of credit card fraud. He was then deported AFTER being convicted in a court of law and serving a prison term. Source links here:

http://cryptome.quintessenz.at/mirror/s93/...d-ny-112601.htm

http://www.americas.org/item_14954

Me skewing the story ? Perhaps you missed the link at the bottom of the OP, which leads to the FOX news story where the info in the OP came from.

Surely you are familiar with the right-wing, Republican mouth-piece that is known as Fox News ? Remember, they are the only media outlet that "The Rifleman" would talk to after that little incident in Texas.

Surely Fox would never endanger their priveleged status with the administration by skewing a story that would reflect badly on that administration ?

He was eventually deported after admitting to credit card fraud,

I love how you skew this in a lame-o attempt to lob a pot shot the current administration.

The story said he was deported after PLEADING GUILTY to a charge of credit card fraud. He was then deported AFTER being convicted in a court of law and serving a prison term. Source links here:

http://cryptome.quintessenz.at/mirror/s93/...d-ny-112601.htm

http://www.americas.org/item_14954

Me skewing the story ?

Yeah ... you skewing the story.

You said the guy admitted to credit card fraud.

The story said he plead guilty to a charge.

Not exactly the same thing, is it?

Surely you are familiar with the right-wing, Republican mouth-piece that is known as Fox News ?

Surely Fox would never endanger their priveleged status with the administration by skewing a story that would reflect badly on that administration ?

Man, oh man. Talk about your science fiction.

Try giving O'Reilly a listen sometime!

Yeah ... you skewing the story.

You said the guy admitted to credit card fraud.

The story said he plead guilty to a charge.

Not exactly the same thing, is it?

Oh please.

What I wrote:

"He was eventually deported after admitting to credit card fraud "

What Fox News Reported:

"...but was deported in August 2003 after pleading guilty to credit card fraud

I wrote "admitted", the story said "pleaded guilty"

And you want to start an arguement about that ?

It's called 'deflecting the argument'.

He is trying to shift the central point of the argument, hoping that it will get lost in the confusement.

And later on page 23, when trying to get back to it, it will be rendered as 'moot' and met with silence.

Man, oh man. Talk about your science fiction.

Try giving O'Reilly a listen sometime!

Actually, I watch "The No-Spin" zone almost everyday. That is where I get the impression about where Fox stands as far as the current administration is concerned.

O'Reilly used to be a die-hard Republican. He started his show on Fox (in 1996). In January 2000, he claimed to be an Independant . In December 2000, it was pointed out that he was still a registered Republican. He switched to registered Independant in 2001, but there's little (or no) doubt that he is still a Republican at heart.

He will, on rare occassions, criticize the Bush administration, but it's usually on cases where he doesn't think they have gone far enough (in a right-wing, conservative way). For example, border security.

Pheww. Been reading a lot of "O'Reilly" related websites (including Wikipedia). If you actually take the time to read some of the stuff about him, it makes me wonder how he still has a job.

It's called 'deflecting the argument'.

Actually deflecting the argument is stating that the guy was falsely imprisoned for suspected terrorist connections or action, when in fact for a portion of that time he was imprisoned, it was for the FELONY charge to which he PLEAD GUILTY, was CONVICTED and SENTENCED!

The whole issue with this guy is a sham. He came to the US as an immigrant, chose to engage in criminal activities, got caught and paid the price, and then continued to whinge about it after the fact. He is a convict who found some sucker lawyer to pursue a sham, agenda-driven lawsuit.

The facts need no spin!

It's called 'deflecting the argument'.

Actually deflecting the argument is stating that the guy was falsely imprisoned for suspected terrorist connections or action, when in fact for a portion of that time he was imprisoned, it was for the FELONY charge to which he PLEAD GUILTY, was CONVICTED and SENTENCED!

So what was he held for during the other 'portion' of the time? Perhaps "falsely imprisoned for suspected terrorist connections or action"?

The whole issue with this guy is a sham. He came to the US as an immigrant, chose to engage in criminal activities, got caught and paid the price, and then continued to whinge about it after the fact. He is a convict who found some sucker lawyer to pursue a sham, agenda-driven lawsuit.

The facts need no spin!

You fail to explain away the fact that he was falsely imprisoned for a 'portion' of the time.

Why do you persistently spin, when "the facts need no spin"?

Are you trying to attain the status of "Bedlam Clown"? This isn't the first topic you are unable to digest some facts and make sensible comments.

You fail to explain away the fact that he was falsely imprisoned for a 'portion' of the time.

I was trying to give the benefit of the doubt. In reality the whole claim of false imprisonment is nothing more than a lawyer's allegation.

What cannot be denied is that an immigrant chose to commit a felony, was caught, convicted, sentenced, served time and subsequently deported because of that conviction.

For all we know, the guy's credit card fraud was for the benefit of Al-Quaida. Who knows? Maybe the US let him go to follow him and see which little rat hole he squirms into.

One of my brother's best friends in New York City was the victim of credit card fraud around that time, and the people who committed the fraud were tried and convicted as being associated with Al-Quaida. Maybe this guy was a colleague or associate. Who knows?

For all we know, the guy's credit card fraud was for the benefit of Al-Quaida. Who knows? Maybe the US let him go to follow him and see which little rat hole he squirms into.

And the US agreed to give him $300,000 to help finance his little rat-hole ? Money that could possibly go to financing more attacks against Americans ? Doesn't make sense to me

(yes I know he hasn't got the money yet, it still has to be approved by a Federal Judge. But the fact is, the government agreed to the settlement)

One of my brother's best friends in New York City was the victim of credit card fraud around that time, and the people who committed the fraud were tried and convicted as being associated with Al-Quaida. Maybe this guy was a colleague or associate. Who knows?

If that was the case, then why did they let him go ? He obviously didn't get a very long sentence for the credit card fraud he pleaded guilty to.

If it was thought that he might be an Al-Queda associate, wouldn't he have been sent to that "other" place where they could politely question him indefinitely ?

You fail to explain away the fact that he was falsely imprisoned for a 'portion' of the time.

I was trying to give the benefit of the doubt. In reality the whole claim of false imprisonment is nothing more than a lawyer's allegation.

Ahh, you're changing tune again when inconsistencies in your arguments are pinpointed, yet again.

Only, I am afraid, to expose your lack of reasoning once more: if the claim is nothing but lawyers allegation, it seems very generous of the US gov to pay 300.000 for it.

Perhaps the facts and legal reality don't match your spin?

What cannot be denied is that an immigrant chose to commit a felony, was caught, convicted, sentenced, served time and subsequently deported because of that conviction.

Nobody has denied this. Nobody denies that the US gov agreed to pay compensation for wrongful imprisonment, either.

For all we know, the guy's credit card fraud was for the benefit of Al-Quaida. Who knows? Maybe the US let him go to follow him and see which little rat hole he squirms into.

One of my brother's best friends in New York City was the victim of credit card fraud around that time, and the people who committed the fraud were tried and convicted as being associated with Al-Quaida. Maybe this guy was a colleague or associate. Who knows?

Yeah, who knows? What's the point of speculating?

it seems very generous of the US gov to pay 300.000 for it.

Based upon available public information which I've linked earlier, the US hasn't actually paid the guy a nickel yet. What they agreed to was a settlement pending approval by a judge in a different court. It's no different than the ambulance-chasing lawyer suing the sidewalk builder and the city of New York because some drunk fell and broke his butt on a sidewalk in winter. If I were that convict, I wouldn't be holding my breath or anxiously awaiting a positive or rapid decision on the approval.

What kills me is why people like you are so eager to take sides with and defend some low life scumbag who came to the US to engage in and seek monetary gain from criminal activities. Try defending your home country (wherever that is) instead of the losers-in-life whose objective is to do it no good.

What kills me is why people like you are so eager to take sides with and defend some low life scumbag who came to the US to engage in and seek monetary gain from criminal activities. Try defending your home country (wherever that is) instead of the losers-in-life whose objective is to do it no good.

I am not taking sides with this guy, I simply object to people like yourself putting the spin on such a story to promote your political views once again.

He was convicted for credit card fraud, anything else is speculation, and the US gov had no grounds for holding him on other charges which would stick in court. End of story.

He was convicted for credit card fraud, anything else is speculation, and the US gov had no grounds for holding him on other charges which would stick in court.

Nice hypocritical contradictory viewpoint there zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzip!

You acknowledge the single known fact that the guy is a convict. You freely admit anything else is speculation. Then you jump to the conclusion that the US had no grounds to hold him. Sounds like you trying to spin speculation into truth ........................ again.

Remove the "ap" and whaddya get?

zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz same old boring stuff

Please apply logic, Spee, and read the complete post.

I know it's difficult for you, but my previous comment only consists of 3 sentences.

Hint: "Then you jump to the conclusion that the US had no grounds to hold him" - on other charges.

Btw, I am still waiting for a response to a few of my comments in bedlam.

Or am I wasting my time explaining stuff to you and expecting the courtesy of acknowledgement in return?

Are you merely trolling for the sake of it?