Archive through November 29, 2001
The ClubHouse: Archive: Ashcroft abusing broad war powers:
Archive through November 29, 2001
Kep421 | Wednesday, November 28, 2001 - 02:25 pm   Oh, I see, so Ashcroft let someone go even though he lawfully didn't have too? That is very specific and I think the point made is that Ashcroft did let him go. The fact that there wasn't enough evidence to hold the fellow isn't that unusual because prosecutors every day find themselves dropping charges or losing cases. The fact that Ashcroft complied with the court ruling, even though he didn't have to, speaks volumes... |
Lancecrossfire | Wednesday, November 28, 2001 - 02:51 pm   Kep, for that individual, I agree that it does speak volumes. I think we can pretty well figure if he decides to use his full powers, he's not going to tell us about it. That too speaks volumes. |
Grooch | Wednesday, November 28, 2001 - 02:55 pm   Here's some information on the U.S.A. Patriot Act. An Intelligence Giant in the Making Anti-Terrorism Law Likely to Bring Domestic Apparatus of Unprecedented Scope --------------------------------------------------by Jim McGee Washington Post Staff Writer Sunday, November 4, 2001; Page A04 Molded by wartime politics and passed a week and a half ago in furious haste, the new anti-terrorism bill lays the foundation for a domestic intelligence-gathering system of unprecedented scale and technological prowess, according to both supporters and critics of the legislation. Overshadowed by the public focus on new Internet surveillance and "roving wiretaps" were numerous obscure features in the bill that will enable the Bush administration to make fundamental changes at the Federal Bureau of Investigation, the Central Intelligence Agency and several Treasury Department law enforcement agencies. Known as the U.S.A. Patriot Act, the law empowers the government to shift the primary mission of the FBI from solving crimes to gathering domestic intelligence. In addition, the Treasury Department has been charged with building a financial intelligence-gathering system whose data can be accessed by the CIA. Most significantly, the CIA will have the authority for the first time to influence FBI surveillance operations inside the United States and to obtain evidence gathered by federal grand juries and criminal wiretaps. "We are going to have to get used to a new way of thinking," Assistant Attorney General Michael Chertoff, who is overseeing the investigation of the Sept. 11 attacks, said in an interview. "What we are going to have is a Federal Bureau of Investigation that combines intelligence with effective law enforcement." The new law reflects how profoundly the attacks changed the nation's thinking about the balance between domestic security and civil liberties. The bill effectively tears down legal fire walls erected 25 years ago during the Watergate era, when the nation was stunned by disclosures about presidential abuses of domestic intelligence-gathering against political activists. The overwhelming support in Congress shows that the nation's political leadership was persuaded that intelligence-gathering can no longer be restricted by the reforms that emerged out of a landmark 1975 Senate investigation. After wading through voluminous evidence of intelligence abuses, a committee led by Sen. Frank Church warned that domestic intelligence-gathering was a "new form of governmental power" that was unconstrained by law, often abused by presidents and always inclined to grow. One reform that grew out of the Church hearings was the segregation within the FBI of the bureau's criminal investigation function and its intelligence-gathering against foreign spies and international terrorists. The new anti-terrorism legislation foreshadows an end to that separation by making key changes to the law underpinning it, the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) of 1978. "They have had to divide the world into the intelligence side and law enforcement," Chertoff said. The new law "should be a big step forward in changing the culture." FISA allows the FBI to carry out wiretaps and searches that would otherwise be unconstitutional. Unlike regular FBI criminal wiretaps, known as Title IIIs, the goal is to gather intelligence, not evidence. To guard against abuse, the attorney general had to certify to a court that the "primary purpose" of the FISA wiretap was to listen in on a specific foreign spy or terrorist. In negotiating the new legislation, the Bush administration asked for a lower standard for approval -- changing the words "primary purpose" to "a purpose." This would allow people merely suspected of working with terrorists or spies to be wiretapped. The debate over this wording was one of the fiercest surrounding the new anti-terrorism law. Senate negotiators settled on the phrase "a significant purpose," which will still allow the Bush administration the leeway it wants, according toChertoff and others. In passing the anti-terrorism law, congressional leaders were leery enough of the historical precedents to insist on a "sunset provision" that will cause the FISA amendment and other "enhanced surveillance" features to expire unless reenacted in 2005. On the day the bill passed, Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.) the Senate negotiator of the bill, said on the Senate floor that he had reluctantly "acquiesced" to the Bush administration's demands for anti-terrorism powers that could be used to violate civil liberties. "The bill enters new and uncharted territory by breaking down traditional barriers between law enforcement and foreign intelligence," said Leahy, who is chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee. Leahy said he expectedthe Justice Department to consult with the committee on any fundamental changes. During the deliberations, Attorney General John D. Ashcroft characterized the anti-terrorism bill as a package of "tools" urgently needed to combat terrorism. The attorney general cut short his testimony before the Judiciary Committee, then declined to attend two additional Senate hearings for closer questioning. Ashcroft declined to be interviewed for this story by The Washington Post. The new law also gives the CIA unprecedented access to the most powerful investigative weapon in the federal law enforcement's arsenal: the federal grand jury. Grand juries have nearly unlimited power to gather evidence in secret, including testimony, wiretap transcripts, phone records, business records or medical records. In the past, Rule 6(e) of the Rules of Federal Procedure required a court order whenever prosecutors shared federal grand jury evidence with other federal agencies. The new law permits allows the FBI to give grand jury information to the CIA without a court order, as long as the information concerns foreign intelligence or international terrorism. The information can also be shared widely throughout the national security establishment. "As long as the targets are non-Americans, they now can sweep up and distribute, without limitation, the information they gather about Americans," said Morton Halperin, a leading member of the civil liberties community and co-author of a legal text on national security law. As a legal matter, the CIA is still prohibited from exercising domestic police powers or spying on U.S. citizens. However, its intelligence officers will work side by side with federal agents who do have arrest and domestic investigative authority. Sen. Bob Graham (D-Fla.), chairman of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, said the changes are long overdue and necessary to address the new terrorist threat. "We are dealing with the issue of the empowerment of the Director of Central Intelligence," said Graham, who said he will carefully monitor how the new powers are used. The new counterterrorism powers given to Treasury agencies breach another wall of the Church reforms, which consolidated domestic intelligence-gathering inside the FBI to ensure accountability. Treasury's expanded domestic intelligence ...[Message truncated] |
Karuuna | Wednesday, November 28, 2001 - 03:00 pm   Kep - what it says is that after spending nearly 2-1/2 months in jail, and spending thousands of dollars in attorney fees, losing his good standing as a student and all tuition he paid for the current semester, and finally getting a court to hear his case, where the court basically said that the justice department had NO evidence to hold this man, yeah, Ashcroft finally let him go. You're right, it does speak volumes. |
Kep421 | Wednesday, November 28, 2001 - 03:16 pm   Thank you Grooch!!!! |
Kep421 | Wednesday, November 28, 2001 - 03:24 pm   Karuuna, you are talking about someone who lied about knowing the terrorists and by doing so wasted valuable resources that could have been utilized elsewhere. As far as I'm concerned he got off easy at only 2-1/2 months. He brought it on himself. |
Karuuna | Wednesday, November 28, 2001 - 04:33 pm   Kep, I'm talking about someone who lied about knowing the terrorists during initial questioning and then *admitted* he knew the terrorists when asked by the grand jury. I'm talking about someone who was then held without bail for no reason without ever being charged with a crime. And who had to prove his innocence in order to get out of jail -- the exact reverse of what our judicial system is about. I'm talking about a case where the judge was astounded at the lack of evidence against him; and who then admonished for the Justice Dept. for its handling of the case. |
Karuuna | Wednesday, November 28, 2001 - 04:45 pm   My concern doesn't just stop with Ashcroft's new autocratic powers over the arrest and detention of non-citizens. There are the matters of - secret military tribunals - clear violations of due process - loss of attorney/client privilege - new search laws that enable searches of your home without warning, and without notification, and without ever telling you (or anyone else) that they did or what they took - Bush's new edict that US presidents, sitting and former, *never* have to release their presidential office communications & papers - contrary to the freedom of information act While we are sitting in fear of another terrorist act, our constitutional rights and freedoms, and our right to know what our government is doing, are being seriously compromised. And I think it's important to know that. |
Kep421 | Wednesday, November 28, 2001 - 05:25 pm   Karuuna, I know its not against the law to lie during an investigation, just like it isn't against the law to send talcum powder in envelopes through the mail. But in today's world if you get caught sending talcum powder through the mail, you will be arrested and detained. Likewise if you give false information during terrorist investigations, you should also be arrested and detained. I see no difference. During a time when it is not prudent to take chances on the nation's security, it only made sense to detain someone who couldn't seem to be able to tell the truth. |
Ocean_Islands | Wednesday, November 28, 2001 - 05:39 pm   The government has been shown many times that it is not worthy of blind trust. That is why, after all, we have a system of checks and balances. Even the framers of the constitution did not believe that parts of the government were trustworthy, so they set in place institutions to watch over each other. These new laws override these important checks and balances and are very dangerous. No proof for illegal actions on the part of the U.S. government? Hello? It is illegal to hold anyone for even two days without a charge. Many of those held have never been charged. Let's pray that some day we do not see as a headline on the front page of the New York Times: "Freedoms Revoked in Protection of Freedom" |
Carigsby | Wednesday, November 28, 2001 - 05:58 pm   From what the article posted above said - and what I have read about the Patriot Act, I see nothing about unlimited holding powers. As a matter of fact, on Senator Leahy's website, he outlines a bill where there is a limit to holding suspects to 7 days, whereby on the 7th day they have to charged or released. I think this is quite the right step. Please show me where the Patriot Act gives Ashcroft dictatorship over these proceedings, because I just don't see it or read it anywhere. The Patriot Act is expediting proceedings by eliminating steps. It clearly states that the changes in gathering evidence does not change for American citizens - it changes with non-citizens and I don't have a problem with that. As I stated earlier - being able to use telephone conversations as evidence instead of intelligence is very much needed when investigating suspected or alleged terrorists as further evidence may be impossible to find. I think this is a good move. I can see and understand your concerns over constitutional rights. However, the constitution gives rights to "We the People of the United States of America" not "we the people of the world" or "the people from other parts of the country who commit horrendous acts of terror on We the People of the United States". |
Carigsby | Wednesday, November 28, 2001 - 06:11 pm   OK - I went to check it out and this is what I found..... The quote from the bill posted earlier about the AG's power is very accurate - but only a segment of the rest of the paragraph. According to the bill, there are several ways described in which the AG has the right to detain those suspected of terroristic knowledge or participation. As far as detainment - he must provide evidence within 7 days of detainment and charge the individual or they are released. If they are to continue to be detained - the remain in custody until they are removed from the U.S. (I totally agree with this). Every 6 months, the AG has to submit reports on those detained and charges filed and status of those. Here is the link to the bill: http://www.house.gov/judiciary/hr2975terrorismbill.pdf |
Kep421 | Wednesday, November 28, 2001 - 06:44 pm   Thank you Carigsby...I agree with your posts 100% |
Carigsby | Wednesday, November 28, 2001 - 06:53 pm   Right back atcha, Kep!!!  |
Ocean_Islands | Wednesday, November 28, 2001 - 07:47 pm   The American idea about rights is about human rights, not about American rights. That is why we hold other countries to the same standards on human rights -- it doesn't matter where you come from or what country you represent. Human rights issues still apply. Let me add that a nation that is tested shows its truest nature. It means little if America respects human rights in good times -- it is the bad times that are the true test for any nation or people. If we cannot hold to our values in a time of trouble, then what value are they? If you feel that the people being held by the government should just be executed or punished without proof or due process of law, what makes you any better than the Taliban? That is how they treat people. |
Car54 | Wednesday, November 28, 2001 - 07:54 pm   Thank you Ocean. |
Kep421 | Wednesday, November 28, 2001 - 08:07 pm   I didn't see anything in the Patriot Act about executions, and I don't see our government in the same light as the Taliban. Human rights and constitutional rights are not one in the same. We do not hold other countries to our constitutional standards. These detainees are not being held in some rat infested dungeon without benefit of food, water or medical attention. Nor are they being executed in the dark of night and buried in some secret field somewhere. Quite the contrary. And until somebody does prove to me that we are detaining these people in those conditions, I don't think anyone's human rights are being violated. The Patriot Act does not call for any actions that violate human rights. I do agree that it does restrict certain constitutional rights for non-American citizens but I do not have a problem with that. Other countries throughout the world have a different set of laws and standards by which they judge non-citizens. It is an internationally accepted practice and long overdue here on US soil. |
Carigsby | Wednesday, November 28, 2001 - 08:08 pm   I never said that I thought the people being held should be executed or punished without proof or due process. We have been debating here the meaning of the Patriot Act and what it means to our country. I have never said (nor thought) that these people should be executed or punished without evidence. I do think that a different standard should be applied to them as far as evidence goes because of how difficult it is to find evidence (which I think is a good thing). However - if people are coming to this country and planning to attack us and the only piece of evidence we have is a telephone conversation then by hell, that telephone conversation better be admissible in a court of law (which the Patriot Act allows). I agree with your point on our country being tested and showing our true nature. However - I do not agree that "human" rights means terrorist are tried in our justice system by our justice laws. If they are covered under our laws, then they are released and left to reek more havoc on our country. I feel that our laws apply to our people and not those who are here illegally or plot against us. In all honesty, I feel that the UN should be responsible for trying the alleged terrorists and not the US because of biased. These people are being allowed due process - but with broader terms. If you read the Patriot Act you will see that all it does is broaden the laws already intact specifically for suspected terrorist activity. It does not apply to US citizens or even non-citizens who are tried for 9/11 unrelated activity. This bill is only for those who are questioned/suspected/alleged terrorists. |
Carigsby | Wednesday, November 28, 2001 - 08:09 pm   Absolutely, Kep. Very well said |
Ocean_Islands | Thursday, November 29, 2001 - 05:37 am   In my conversations with people (not on this site, but in person) since the 911 events, several have made extreme statements. It's sad that some don't have such faith in our justice system that they believe the same rules of evidence should not be applied. After all, terrorists from the Lockerbie bombing and the Embassy bombings were tried in regular courts and convicted. My worry is the setting of a precedent which could come to great harm in future years regarding rules of evidence and the new laws being enacted. Laws should never be enacted in the heat of the moment, but carefully weighed over time. I think Congress and the president acted too quickly. I think the danger is in your last sentence, that this 'patriot act' is only for those who are 'questioned/suspected/alleged terrorists'. 350 years ago, substitute this word into the phrase: 'questioned/suspected/alleged witches'. Things like this can easily get out of hand. |
Ocean_Islands | Thursday, November 29, 2001 - 05:39 am   November 29, 2001 NYTimes THE CASES Al Qaeda Link Seen in Only a Handful of 1,200 Detainees By DAVID FIRESTONE and CHRISTOPHER DREW The nationwide search for terrorists after Sept. 11 has resulted in the arrests of more than 1,200 people, but law enforcement officials said yesterday that only a small number of those detained are believed to have any links to terrorism. The approximately 600 people still in custody are mostly being held on immigration violations or unrelated crimes from child pornography to credit card fraud that agents came across while pursuing the investigation. On Tuesday, Attorney General John Ashcroft said the campaign of detentions was intended to remove "suspected terrorists who violate the law from our streets." But a review of documents and interviews with law enforcement officials and defense lawyers show that the detentions have yielded a collection of fairly routine immigration violators, speeders and petty criminals who got caught up in an aggressive dragnet prompted by fears of further terrorist attacks. Of the 104 people charged with federal crimes as announced by Mr. Ashcroft on Tuesday, almost all were accused of crimes completely unrelated to terrorism. Senior federal law enforcement officials said today that of the group, only 10 or 11 were believed to have any relationship to the terrorist group Al Qaeda. Of another group of 548 people, all unnamed, that Mr. Ashcroft said are being held on immigration charges across the country, only about a dozen are believed to have terrorist ties, the senior law enforcement officials said. Those officials, who are involved in the investigation, said today that they were skeptical of Mr. Ashcroft's characterization that the detentions were having a profound impact on interrupting terrorist activity in the United States. One former senior F.B.I. official described the investigation this way: "When you send a whole lot of agents out after a whole lot of people, they're going to find some who committed various crimes. It's just inevitable. And when they find criminal activity, even if it's not the crime they were looking for, they're going to make an arrest." Since mid-October, in fact, the number of people who the authorities believe have any connection to the Sept. 11 attacks has grown only slightly, even as the F.B.I. and the Immigration and Naturalization Service have continued to round up and hold hundreds of people. The contrast between the progress of the investigation and the repeated statements of Mr. Ashcroft that the detentions are preventing terrorism has led many advocates to charge that the government is simply looking for ways to keep people detained as it struggles to build its terrorism cases. "Initially, it was a huge sweep, and it seemed like there was some basis for thinking these people might have some information on the terrorists," said Jeanne A. Butterfield, executive director of the American Immigration Lawyers Association, which includes many of the lawyers representing those arrested. "But as things have gone on, it has come to seem very broad and overreaching, a fishing expedition instead of a targeted law enforcement effort." The cloud of terrorism no longer remains over many of those in custody, however. A large number of those still in detention are now simply fighting the garden-variety criminal and immigration charges that the government used to arrest them in the first place. The F.B.I. has lost interest in them as possible terrorists, but local authorities and immigration officials feel obliged to continue their pursuit of the original charges, which often resulted from tips or traffic stops. In one example, officials said a truck salesman in Philadelphia called the F.B.I. in mid-September after two men from Egypt tried to buy a large panel truck with $30,000 in cash. One of the men lived in New York City, and federal agents quickly determined that he had been in the United States on an expired visa for nine years. Law enforcement officials said they also found that his apartment was filled with false identification cards and that several phone numbers found in the apartment had come up in narcotics investigations. They said the man was detained on immigration charges and was still being held. In another case, the officials said, they received a tip in late September about a Middle Eastern man who had been seen with flight manuals. When agents visited him, they decided that he had no ties to terrorists. But they found that he was using a stolen computer and that his immigration status was in violation of the law. He was taken into I.N.S. custody and included in the tally of people detained. Of the approximately 600 people who have been released, some were freed on condition they leave the country, while others were simply let go, never fully understanding what happened to them. Abdulsalam Achou, a Syrian who had overstayed his visa, lived in a Jersey City apartment next to one rented by two men who had been seized in Texas shortly after the attacks carrying box cutters and cash. He was swept up in a raid of the building by officials looking for immigration violations and was held until this month, when the I.N.S. agreed to release him on condition he leave the country. Kamolakhan Tuychieva, a 41-year- old woman from Uzbekistan, was arrested on Sept. 25 in Parkin, Ark., while riding in a car with three other people, one of whom had a name similar to one on the F.B.I.'s terrorism watch list, according to an F.B.I. affidavit. She was charged with overstaying her tourist visa and violating its terms by accepting employment with a janitorial service cleaning Wal-Mart stores. For 40 days, she was held as a material witness against the others in the car, but no evidence was presented against her. "I kept asking them, `What information is there that you think my client knows?' but they wouldn't answer," said her lawyer, Mark Jesse of Little Rock. "I've practiced for 10 years, but I've never heard of anyone being held for 40 days as a material witness." Administration officials say they see nothing wrong in using the terrorist roundup to arrest or deport aliens for unrelated charges, even after their connection to terrorism has been disproved. "There are people who are in custody being detained pursuant to immigration violations, and let's be clear, those are people who have essentially overstayed their welcome in this country," Assistant Attorney General Michael Chertoff told the Senate Judiciary Committee yesterday. "They don't belong here." But immigration violations were only one tool used to hold those under suspicion. Hundreds of other people were detained by local officials after traffic stops or other random encounters with the police, and senior law-enforcement officials now say that most them have been released and are thought to have little or no connection to terrorists. Many of these arrests occurred between late September and early November, when Mr. Ashcroft warned twice about possible additional terrorist attacks and tips were pouring in from a worried public. Law enforcement officials in New York, for instance, said the tips have come from all sorts of people, including Arab Americans. In one case, an Egyptian man called to report that his roommate's brother had threatened to blow up a shopping mall, the officials said. The officials also have been extremely sensitive to possible threats to New York's bridges, tunnels and landmark buildings and have stopped a variety of people who were taking photographs or videotapes of them. But in most of these cases, the officials said, people were detained only if they were in the United States illegally. For instance, in early November, police officers stopped two Israelis who were videotaping the Queens- Midtown Tunnel. One of them, whose visa was in order, said he was just taking tourist pictures; he was released. The other, who had overstayed a work visa, was taken into I.N.S. custody, officials said. Not all of those who are on the F.B.I.'s list but are not related to Sept. 11 are charged with petty crimes, however. On Friday, Vicente Rafael Pierre, 44, and his wife, Traci Elaine Upshur, will go to trial before a federal jury in Roanoke, Va., on firearms charges that include illegal possession of a firearm, fraudulently obtaining a firearm, and knowingly violating firearms regulations. Federal prosecutors say Mr. Pierre, who is a convicted felon, had his wife buy two semiautomatic pistols for him. During a detention hearing in September, Thomas Gallagher, a special agent for the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms, said Mr. Pierre was linked to Al Fuqra, which Mr. Gallagher described as a violent black Muslim group that has been responsible for 17 bombings and 12 murders nationwide. Al Fuqra, according to federal investigators, was formed in Pakistan in the early 1980's and set up cells in North America in the early 1990's. Mr. Pierre has testified that the group is merely a figment of someone's imagination. |
Ocean_Islands | Thursday, November 29, 2001 - 05:53 am   This following article addresses the problems of the Arabs in Michigan, who have received an 'invitation' to come in for questioning. Please see italicized paragraphs for most pertinent info regarding human rights. November 29, 2001 THE QUESTIONING Memo Adds to Suspicions of Immigrants on Interviews By THE NEW YORK TIMES EARBORN, Mich., Nov. 28 — A week ago, the Justice Department's top civil rights official came here to defend a federal plan to interview 5,000 young Middle Eastern men who had entered the United States on temporary visas. The official, Ralph Boyd Jr., said the interviews would be voluntary and were needed to help the government investigate the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks. His remarks were greeted with skepticism among the large population of Arab-Americans here, where many have equated the plan with racial profiling. And that skepticism grew stronger today after The Detroit Free Press reported on an Immigration and Naturalization Service memorandum that said those who were interviewed could be held without bond if investigators developed an interest in them. The memorandum, dated Friday, was written by Michael A. Pearson, executive associate commissioner of the immigration service, and was sent to all regional offices. It said requests by the Federal Bureau of Investigation "to detain immigration violators under `no bond' should be honored and will be handled in the same manner as all prior cases with a direct nexus to the Sept. 11 investigation." Noel Saleh, an immigration lawyer with many Arab clients, said of the memorandum, "It just confirms our suspicion that what they've been saying was to be a friendly encounter is not going to be a friendly encounter." Mohammed Abdrabboh, another lawyer who represents Arab immigrants here, agreed. "There is such a deep mistrust here," he said. "People think it's becoming a dragnet, and this memo just confirms that." Imad Hamad, regional director of the American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee, said people here viewed the memorandum in the context of earlier developments, from the passage of a sweeping antiterrorism law to the decision to try terrorism suspects in secret military tribunals. Mr. Hamad said Arab-Americans were feeling increasingly singled out. "We all share the same concerns about safety and security," Mr. Hamad said. "It's just hard for us to accept this kind of racial profiling, and especially to accept that it could be part of our lives indefinitely." A Justice Department spokeswoman, Susan Dryden, acknowledged the memorandum, but said it did not indicate any change in policy. "Our primary purpose here is not identifying immigration law violations," she said, "but at the same time, it is our job to uphold the law. If we come across violators, we will report them." More than 700 of those on the list of Middle Eastern men live in the Detroit area, and federal officials here have tried to ease local fears of racial profiling, agreeing to send letters of invitation to the men, rather than showing up unannounced and knocking on their doors. Abe Turaani, special projects coordinator for the American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee, said he was starting to hear some people talk about returning to their homelands. Describing one such conversation, Mr. Turaani said: "I had one man say to me, `Where I come from, this is the norm. Here we are taught democracy and then we see this happening. Maybe I would rather live somewhere where it's predictable and it's the norm.' " Mr. Saleh said a young man on a student visa, for example, might go into an interview knowing that he had fallen behind on his required course load and thus was technically in violation of immigration laws. That young man might be nervous. "And that nervousness," Mr. Saleh said, "might be interpreted as being uncooperative. And he could be detained." Mr. Abdrabboh said the release of the memorandum would raise the anxiety of those who were to be interviewed. "I think it is going to make some people not even show up," he added. "Then they will go looking for them. And then we will see how voluntary this really is." |
Kep421 | Thursday, November 29, 2001 - 06:01 am   This article really makes my point. Not one of the listed instances indicates that people were held without a reason and even states that the people who did not have ties with terrorism and whose immigrant status is in order were not held. I do not think that there is anything wrong in detaining or deporting non-citizens who have expired visas or do not have the legal right to be here. This article shows that we are trying to rid our country from those who would harm it, and the fact that we are reducing the number of illegal immigrants in the process is just an added bonus. |
Carigsby | Thursday, November 29, 2001 - 06:21 am   "And that skepticism grew stronger today after The Detroit Free Press reported on an Immigration and Naturalization Service memorandum that said those who were interviewed could be held without bond if investigators developed an interest in them." People who are suspected of crimes and charged with crimes are held without bond every single day if they are considered flight risks. This is nothing new. The article didn't say that they would be held if they came in - but only if there was reason to believe they were involved in wrong-doing. And really, how many illegal criminal immigrants are really going to show up for this anyway? As far as your witch hunt comparison.... Witches were hunted because they practiced a religion that many felt to be of the devil and evil. This was clearly a violation of rights. If suspected terrorists (who are not US citizens) are hunted out and investigated and it saves my life or the lives of my family or the lives of US citizens that I don't even know, then good. They aren't searching for them because they are Muslim - they are searching because of their activities and suspicions. And if, in this search, they happen to round up more non-terrorists who are still in this country illegally or committing illegal acts while here then they need to be dealt with anyway. And, the law does not change for them. The Patriot Act relates exclusively for terrorist activity of noncitizens. |
Twiggyish | Thursday, November 29, 2001 - 07:05 am   In the case of the Salem witch hunts, innocent people were rounded up and arrested based on implication (by "witnesses") or suspicion. There was a "hunt" for those thought to be witches. Those people were considered a threat at the time. So, in this case, there is a comparison. We have to be careful not to turn this into the current situation into a "witch hunt". |
|