wring, gotcha. I was just confused about the subject of the deportation.
I agree with the folks who are a bit nervous about the “have no rights” thing…erode, erode, erode…
jayjay
So you have no qalms that an American citizen (by birth none the less) is now locked up in his own country without warrant, arrest, etc.? And that he will be held indefinitely without trial, never having been charged, let alone convicted, of breaking any law pertaining to his current incarceration?
Have you ever read the US Constitution? 
Bear in mind that FDR’s Executive Order ordering the internment of Japanese-Americans was later upheld by the US Supreme Court. To my knowledge, that court decision has yet to be reversed.
I am not saying I am in agreement with what FDR did, nor the Court’s decision, but there is a difference between one’s moral opinion and the still existing legal decision on this issue.
Besides, FDR’s EO restricted US citizens. The current war on terrorism is dealing with non-US citizens, notwithstanding Jose Padilla in this thread, who seek not just to commit terrorism against the USA, but attack and ultimately destroy the USA as a country, a people and as a culture.
As much as I loathe terrorists, and support the Constitution, American citizens still have rights in their own country. However, I am no so sure that non-US citizens committing terrorism against the USA, bent on attacking and ultimately destroying the USA as a country, a people and as a culture be accorded the same rights as US citizens.
----It shouldn’t matter if you’re accused of killing every single person on earth. If you’re a U.S. citizen, you should get a trial, period.----
And then, when that fails, you should sue for damages because the government wasn’t able to find a jury of your peers, seeing as they’re all dead.
So the government can deprive you of life, limb or liberty without due process of law if you may be a terrorist and the government gets to decide who may be a terrorist and needs not explain it or justify it to anyone? Wow. The Soviets and the Chinese were so far ahead of us.
I suppose the military should also take matters into their own hands and not follow lawful orders if they believe they are not for the good of the country. Maybe they should have staged a coup and installed Gore in the White House? The ends would justify it?
Where do you stop? When you have a country like Afghanistan where the rule of law comes out of an AK47?
If he is to be held until this “war” on terror is over, then we know exactly how long he’ll be held without trial.
Forever.
—Bear in mind that FDR’s Executive Order ordering the internment of Japanese-Americans was later upheld by the US Supreme Court. To my knowledge, that court decision has yet to be reversed.—
A San Fran federal judge overturned Korematsu’s conviction, and his decision was uncontested. The U.S. Government has apologized for the dententions, awarded medals to victims, and even paid some civil restitution.
—I am not saying I am in agreement with what FDR did, nor the Court’s decision, but there is a difference between one’s moral opinion and the still existing legal decision on this issue.—
Only once in my knowledge has the Court ever violated its own code of ethics in conferring with the executive branch on what its decision should be. Korematsu was that case. Both the majority and dissenting opinions bend the law over backwards to reach their desired results: the majority to defend the honor of the U.S. military in allowing nutty General Pickering to put his proud racist beliefs into action, and the dissenters to defend principles, without much legal backup.
The Korematsu case was a tragic and extremely upseting travesty. I cannot think of it without it bringing tears to my eyes.
Fred Korematsu so desperately just wanted to be an American that he went to a “plastic surgeon” to try and get English features. When he didn’t have enough money to pay, the surgeon offered to “cut you up real good so it won’t make much difference.” Fred’s face has been horribly scarred since, and this comically tragic attempt to fit in did him no good: he was still thrown into a camp. He fought for his case, but when the SC threw it back in his face, he gave up completely. His own grandchildren never learned who he was until they learned about his case in school and made the connection to their own names.
But was the case decided incorrectly, on the law? I don’t know. That’s one reason I can’t sleep soundly at night, among others.
There will be those who say that since we were born, Black people have always been treated like ‘enemy combatants’. That’s why we have to fight for our rights that were supposed to be granted by the Constitution with eternal vigilance. Witness what happened in Florida as an example
Now White America whose sons get caught in terrorist propaganda will know how it feels. Great, now militancy will sharply rise because of the legal limbo that has been created.
Apos thanks for the update.
However, there is a difference between a federal judge overturning the conviction of the case, and the US Supreme Court upholding the EO the original arrest/conviction/overturning rests. Only the SC can reverse an earlier decision it makes. Unless someone can find the SC case reversing the initial decision, the EO is still considered legal, and the internment of Japanese-Americans is still legally upheld.
Additional clarifications:
-
On February 19, 1942, President Franklin D. Roosevelt issued Executive Order 9066, deciding that no one of Japanese ancestry could live on the west coast of the United States, while people of Italian and German ancestry could remain.
-
In 1980, the Commission on Wartime Relocation and Internment of Civilians was established by Congress. This commission reviewed the impact of Executive Order 9066 on Japanese-Americans and determined that they were the victims of discrimination by the Federal government.
-
On August 10, 1988, President Ronald Reagan signed the Civil Liberties Act of 1988. The Act was passed by Congress to provide a Presidential apology and symbolic payment of $20,000.00 to the internees, evacuees, and persons of Japanese ancestry who lost liberty or property because of discriminatory action by the Federal government during World War II. The Act also created the Civil Liberties Public Education Fund to help teach children and the public about the internment period.
Source: http://www.usdoj.gov/kidspage/crt/redress.htm
Notice that 1980 Commission’s finding has no force of law in the context of overturning the original SC decision. With no disrespect here, but it was a feel good decision based upon the hue and cry at the time. There was/still is no legal obligation to pay reparations to Japanese-Americans.
Whether we like it or not, the SC decision still stands and could very well be used by the Bush Administration as a basis to incarcerate US citizens in their own country who have broken no law.
That we haven’t even brought up any relevance of the dangerous USA Patriot Act may show we haven’t even explored the tip of the slippy slope iceberg on this one.
—Unless someone can find the SC case reversing the initial decision, the EO is still considered legal, and the internment of Japanese-Americans is still legally upheld.—
Yet, the convictions got thrown out, including the one that MADE the SC case. The SC is the ruling court, but I’d say the ruling precedent is now with the federal courts that nixed those convictions. If the SC considered this sort of case again, it could hardly ignore the weight of those decisions.
Heavens to Murgatroyd! Can you be more specific? Surely you aren’t advocating a completely independent intelligence apparatus–that can only make things worse. At the end of the day, somebody who’s directly answerable to the public has to be in charge.
Yeah!! Kill Whitey!!!
Just a point of clarification:
I don’t have a problem with prisoners being given enemy combatant status overseas. That’s the way its always been done in previous wars. I would like to see a better definition of what is considered an “enemy combatant” on US soil, and how that it not already covered by existing laws on espionage, treason, etc.
You would?
What is it you mean by “ruling precedent”? Are you suggesting that a federal district judge can make “ruling precdent”?
- Rick
When I heard that we had captured and detained Al Qaeda members, I was hoping that we would show to all the world just how much we valued the principles which we claim our country stands for. I was hoping that we would hold open trials and hearings to demostrate justice. I was quickly disillusioned. And now this. American citizens denied legal counsel and a trial by peers. Precedent for unjustified arrests, jail time without proof of crime.
Franklin did say it best:
I am unsure whether I wish to remain an American citizen. Do you think England would take me, glee? Or perhaps I should run to Canada.
I hearby declare myself the Sovereign Nation of Jon, with myself as the ambassador to the world.
nahtanoj
>> I don’t have a problem with prisoners being given enemy combatant status overseas.
Wait a minute! They were called “prisoners of war” and had certain rights. The whole “illegal enemy combatant” thing is a (shameful and disgusting) way to get around all legality and say “we have him and we’ll do whatever we fucking please with him”. By doing this the US is sinking to the level of Saddam Hussein. Where did the rule of law go?
sailor: You need to quit picking and choosing what parts of the Geneva Convention you’re willing to have the government follow. “Illegal Enemy Combatants” are a class of combatants in that convention, IIRC.
—What is it you mean by “ruling precedent”? Are you suggesting that a federal district judge can make “ruling precdent”?—
That’s probably a poor way to put it, but what I meant is that the Court would have to take seriously the experience of the aftermath of Korematsu and what happened with the various convictions they had declared were kosher. Remember that the original majority decision was, if it was based on good law at all, based on the idea that the state had a compelling interest for arresting a RACE. Do you really think that the same logic would make sense to be argued by the court today, in light of the huge change in attitude on such matters, and the overturning of the related convictions?
Monty, you are right but the rule of law means they should be accorded whatever status they objectively fall into and not just classified at the discretion of the government for their own ends and without due process. If someone is objectively a prisoner of war, then classifying him as something else just to deny him his rights is a travesty and immoral. The whole point of what this administration has been trying to do from the beginning is to deny people their rights and I find that sickening.
What the Geneva Convention has to say on this matter is essentially irrelevant, Monty. GC rights are not in lieu of all other rights under the law. The question is whether these two guys–both American citizens, and both located on American soil and held by the American government–are entitled to due process of law under the American Constitution. Whatever rights they have under the GC are cumulative, not exclusive.
Just to join in the inevitable pile-on of this eye-rolling message of yours, but what about American citizens who are accused of being terrorists, but whose guilt is not yet proven?
That whirring sound you hear is this Administration putting the Bill of Rights through the shredder…
What we need now is solid gun control.