A potentially interesting case, legally speaking, if the evidence remains circumstantial . It's all about drawing and redrawing that crooked line between individual rights and collective safety post-9/11.

As far as the part that gives you the creeps - that neighbors reported to police his rather severe change in appearance - it's important to remember that this was after 9/11. After 9/11, if neighbors witness such an alternation in an immigrant Muslim, they are remiss if they do not report it to police. Police can then decide if the info's worth filing and forwarding to state and federal authorities, who can decide upon action or inaction from there.

That's our Brave New World. And again, the public has demanded such vigilance, even at cost to civil liberties. While you still have the right to grow an "Islamic-type" beard and don the threads and headgear, you no longer have to right to do so without attracting the attention of authorities.

Some people keep insisting that 9/11 did not change everything in domestic security and foreign policy. But they can only wish. As I travel around the country and talk with strangers from so many different walks and read their local papers, it is solidly clear to me that in a very grass roots kinda way, 9/11 has changed everything.

Finally, the NY Times article on this case included a colleague of the suspect saying, "I know this guy and there's no way I can imagine him going to Afghanistan."

How many news reports of violence and murder are accompanied by the near-obligatory quotes from neighbors and collegaues: "He was such a good man, why I can't imagine he would ever have done anything like this"? Even Ted Bundy was a "sweet guy."

So someone starts going to church, grows a beard, and changes their clothes, and that's something we should report to the cops?

And if the FBI has nothing but circumstantial evidence on a US Citizen, they can lock them up for as long as they see fit?

Remember the Committee on Public Safety?

FYI, circumstantial evidence is the basis for "locking people up", as well as arresting them, indicting them, and convicting them in hundreds of cases every day in this country. Prisons are full of people convicted on circumstantial evidence, in a preponderance of trial cases because a jury decided the evidence indicated guilt "beyond a reasonable doubt."

Previous to that, you describe generic circumstances of behavioral and appearance changes, but the case in question was hardly generic (see photos).

Did the guy buy all that stuff and fly to China with the intent to fight against American forces? I don't know. A jury may have to figure it out.

And, yo, where's my Republicans-march-on-Berkeley post? It is a) highly entertaining; b) reports on an unprecedented event; and c) the article addresses important and potentially huge social changes that are daily the stuff of interest on Ish.

Just making my case. You da boss man. I'll resend if you did not receive.

How can I put this in simply?

There are rules and procedures about the right of the government to arrest and try some one. Many of these rules are part of the Constitution. The Framers knew that a government with the untrammelled right to lock up its citizens would lead to the abuse of that power. History has proven them right, in Communist / totalitarian societies, in fascist / totalitarian societies. The green Ford Falcon shows up, and you disappear.

You can say, "well it can't happen here." Of course it can happen here. We are now in a situation where any U.S. Citizen can be imprisoned without trial, without access to a lawyer. We may not even be allowed to know their names. Will we catch some guilty parties this way? Yes. Will we deprive some innocent people of their rights? Most definitely.

You can say, "well that's the price we have to pay for safety after 9/11." Again I repeat Mr. Franklin's words that "Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." You might think that we have to "redraw that crooked line between individual rights and collective safety post-9/11." The line was drawn for us in 1789. We cross it at our collective peril.

So we suspect him of terrorism? Fine. Have a trial. Present the evidence. Let a jury decide. It's his right.

Sorry, that shouldn't be 1789 -- the Con was adopted, what, 1787? 88? And the BofR in 1791. Pick your date.

I trust you put it "simply"due to space limitations - not including the space betwixt my ears.

I agree with what you generally say about rights and the constitution, but the devil is in the rulings. So far, I'm not aware of any judicial rulings with primacy in this matter that indicate the government is acting outside its constitutional purview.

I am aware the Supremes have recently ruled that in some cases pertaining to national security, enemy combatants and other areas the government may detain citizens for some period of time without granting them the rights others receive.

If you have a binding ruling that says otherwise, let me know. You also wrote:

Will we catch some guilty parties this way? Yes. Will we deprive some innocent people of their rights? Most definitely.

I agree, but what I hear the American people saying is, "Try real hard to not screw over inocent people, but we'd rather be safe than sorry." That's pretty much how I feel, too.

Remember, it was the people of this (rather upscale and educated) neighborhood who first ratted this guy. And I'm not at all surprised. People out there are as spooked about 9/11 as if it happened last week.

Also remember, we are one person and one sixty-second terrorist act away from grass roots demands for a wholesale undermining of the Bill of Rights. That's what those 19 motherfuckers have accomplished. If they were alive, I'd like to see them meet the same fate as McVeigh - wouldn't you?

I still think some people still do not fundamentally understand that there are very, very bad people out there with very, very bad intentions - and that they're really hard to stop until it's too late.

One more thing... You wrote:

There are rules and procedures about the right of the government to arrest and try some one. Many of these rules are part of the Constitution.

It's important to note that they're ALL "part of the constitution" - according to some court or another at some level with binding authority.

Read this.

We'll never resolve this, you know. It's like the Miller Lite commercial:

"Less Filling!" "Tastes Great!" "Less Filling!" "Tastes Great!"

but instead:

"Civil Liberties!" "9/11!" "Civil Liberties!" "9/11!" "Civil Liberties!" "9/11!"

True, so far the Patriot Act has been upheld. Doesn't mean that I think it's right, or constitutional.

Oh, and for that last point -- aren't there some rules that are specifically outlined in the Constitution, while others are just laws that have been upheld as constitutional? That's the distinction I was getting at.

"Even in the most frigid periods of the Cold War, we never gave the CIA such sweeping and secret policing powers over American citizens," he said.

It's funny, I wish I had a good and consistent indicator for how spooked people were after 9/11 and how it affected their actions, but in my unsystematic experience the farther people were from the epicenters, and the less time they had spent in these cities, the more spooked they were and the more they profiled. In NYC and DC, I don't get profiled, even though these are the two cities with the greatest continuing risk. It's in other parts of the country where they see a brown face and they start freaking out.

This is exactly a "Tastes Great!"/"Less Filling!" debate, which is why I call it a "crooked line" to be constantly revised. One difference between us is - and I don't use this as justification - I'm generally on the side of that line most people and relevant courts are on.

And don't take too lightly my constant reminder that but for one more split-second terrorist act, you ain't seen nothing yet. If the measures in place, while repulsive to many, prevent that next act of terror, they will also prevent a further grass roots-driven erosion of our rights. In that sense, you might pause (briefly, if you wish) to be thankful for those measures, as they may be saving you from far, far worse.

All this has ultimately nothing to do with abstract ideas and principles - it has to do with death and mayhem and people's innate responses thereto. Go check out the public opinion-supported "civil rights" situation in Israel, where every night out might be your last.

I read the guy's account of his brush with homeland security, and have 2 reponses: 1. It sounds no different from any pre-9/11 INS raid on, say, an L.A. sweatshop. 2. See previous paragraph.

You'll recall that Little Green Footballs post: What if the 9/11 hijackers had all been arrested while they were boarding their flights? So they had prayer shawls and boxcutters? Is that illegal?! One-way, first class tickets paid with cash? The authorities are racist! Kill airline employees, hijack the planes and fly them into the World Trade Center? My God, what's that FBI smoking???!!!

Why, civil libertarians would be hissy-fitting big time, every Bush-hating liberal would feel hugely vindicated, DOJ would suspened all investigations, the FBI Director and Ashcroft would resign, the ACLU would transform would-be mass murderers into cause-celeb victims, Congressional Democrats would stampede each other to launch redundant hearings, NPR would do a guilt-laden series about Racism and Xenophobia in America!, Katie Couric would weep under kleig lights with Mohamed Atta, and 3,000 people would be watching it all with no clue to how close they came to a different fate.

I ask you, is this not an entirely realistic alternate scenario? How does it look now, in the context of what did happen?

Here's how the logic seems to go:

1) Civil libertarians would have disapproved of arrests of the 9/11 hijackers.
2) With hindsight we know what the hijackers would have done.
3) Therefore the civil libertarians would have been wrong about those arrests.
4) Therefore the civil libertarians are wrong about all post-9/11 security measures, because they would have been wrong on the hypothetical 9/12.

I'm not sure I buy #1. There's evidence that we knew such an attack might occur -- we just didn't know where or when. (Check this out.) So it's not like the FBI would have nothing to show for it, if they did arrest the hijackers. And I highly doubt the political fallout would be as you predict in your little scenario.

More to the point, how can you jump from #3 to #4? How can you say "well with hindsight we should have arrested the hijackers" (well duh of course) to "we should have the power to detain US citizens indefinitely without trial"?

It seems that you're eager to blame liberals -- Americans -- for the 9/11 attacks. In fact, I'd ask you to place these in order of their responsibility for the 9/11 attacks themselves: the ACLU, the CIA, Al-Qaeda, Saddam Hussein, the House of Saud.

Doesn't Hawash look Amish in the bottom photo ? Maybe it's the whole "Witness" theme ... (He's a material witness ... )