US: Immigrants may be held indefinitely

[SirLancelot]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20061114/ap_on_...ainees_lawsuits

 

WASHINGTON - Immigrants arrested in the United States may be held indefinitely on suspicion of terrorism and may not challenge their imprisonment in civilian courts, the Bush administration said Monday, opening a new legal front in the fight over the rights of detainees.

 

And before anyone rebuts that our Chinese SO's are not terrorists so we have nothing to worry about, it absolutely doesn't matter if our SO's are terrorists or not. Given this law, so long as the government wants to arrest our SO as an "enemy combatant" then you can't even challenge the arrest in the federal courts.

 

Ali Saleh Kahlah Al-Marri, a citizen of Qatar, was arrested in 2001 while studying in the United States. He has been labeled an "enemy combatant," a designation that, under a law signed last month, strips foreigners of the right to challenge their detention in federal courts.

 

This is a draconian law which completely eats away at our civil rights and Bush is completely out of line.

 

I sure hope this will be challenged by the ACLU or some such organization.

[LeeFisher3]

I'd suggest reading the article again,

In court documents filed with the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Richmond, Va., the Justice Department said

you have mis-read one item and carried the bias of the author one step further.

[SirLancelot]

I'd suggest reading the article again,

In court documents filed with the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Richmond, Va., the Justice Department said

you have mis-read one item and carried the bias of the author one step further.

 

I fail to see your point.

 

I guess one thing is that this is already at the appellate level, so it's already being appealed.

 

I hope this new "anti-terror" law is over-turned.

Edited November 14, 2006 by SirLancelot (see edit history)

[sleepless in Houston&CQ]

I'd suggest reading the article again,

In court documents filed with the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Richmond, Va., the Justice Department said

you have mis-read one item and carried the bias of the author one step further.

 

I fail to see your point.

 

I guess one thing is that this is already at the appellate level, so it's already being appealed.

 

I hope this new "anti-terror" law is over-turned.

 

Sir Lance,

 

What you you suggest we do with these terrorists ?

Put them under house arrest? Have them come and stay with you?

 

Geezs you are reading way to much into this.

I hope the "Anti-Terrors" laws don't get over turned

JMO

Bobby....

[david_dawei]

I think it's the lack [or absence] of Due Process that is being called into question..

[Randy W]

"It's pretty stunning that any alien living in the United States can be denied this right," said Jonathan Hafetz, an attorney for Al-Marri. "It means any non-citizen, and there are millions of them, can be whisked off at night and be put in detention."

 

simply by being declared (by the administration) an "enemy combatant".

[pkfops]

Also not good for us who like to travel to other

countries as we may become victims of retaliation.

[LeeFisher3]

It's amazing that this action has been restricted in it's use since 9/11.

 

A considerable number of articles point to him not being such a nice guy and if we were at war with a country directly he would have been arrested as a spy without much being said.

Al Qaeda suspect declared 'enemy combatant'

 

The calling card usage to contact a paymaster was interesting as well as his reported training camp attendance.

 

Is it coincidental that he arrived in the US just prior to 9/11? Perhaps.

 

Pointing to this case and sliding down the slippery slope to include all immigrants is just a method to try to get people to only look at his immigrant status and not his actives.

[Randy W]

It's simply a matter of convenience that we already know that he's guilty.

 

Used to be, these things would be tried in court.

[LeeFisher3]

It's simply a matter of convenience that we already know that he's guilty.

 

Used to be, these things would be tried in court.

There might be teensy weensy difference between civil criminals and this guy. I would imagine there was more than shaky evidence to get that order signed and hold him as an enemy combatant. But I'm sure the federal government would be happy to let him loose if you personally guaranteed his behavior while in our country and are willing to surrender your life without debate if you are wrong .

 

I also don't have a fondness for serial rapist or child molesters living or frequenting my neighborhood either and would suggest they reside in the adjoining property to those who turn them loose as well. If that were a requirement for those who made the determination to turn them loose on society it would be amazing how many would not so easily be released to prey on the unsuspecting citizenry.

[Randy W]

It's simply a matter of convenience that we already know that he's guilty.

 

Used to be, these things would be tried in court.

There might be teensy weensy difference between civil criminals and this guy. I would imagine there was more than shaky evidence to get that order signed and hold him as an enemy combatant. But I'm sure the federal government would be happy to let him loose if you personally guaranteed his behavior while in our country and are willing to surrender your life without debate if you are wrong .

 

I also don't have a fondness for serial rapist or child molesters living or frequenting my neighborhood either and would suggest they reside in the adjoining property to those who turn them loose as well. If that were a requirement for those who made the determination to turn them loose on society it would be amazing how many would not so easily be released to prey on the unsuspecting citizenry.

 

 

Again: Used to be, these things would be tried in court.

 

NOT on Candle.

[LeeFisher3]

It's simply a matter of convenience that we already know that he's guilty.

 

Used to be, these things would be tried in court.

There might be teensy weensy difference between civil criminals and this guy. I would imagine there was more than shaky evidence to get that order signed and hold him as an enemy combatant. But I'm sure the federal government would be happy to let him loose if you personally guaranteed his behavior while in our country and are willing to surrender your life without debate if you are wrong .

 

I also don't have a fondness for serial rapist or child molesters living or frequenting my neighborhood either and would suggest they reside in the adjoining property to those who turn them loose as well. If that were a requirement for those who made the determination to turn them loose on society it would be amazing how many would not so easily be released to prey on the unsuspecting citizenry.

 

 

Again: Used to be, these things would be tried in court.

 

NOT on Candle.

If you're so hot to help out I'm sure you could spend you time and money on his defense team.

 

NOT on Candle.

[SirLancelot]

I don't care how nice or not nice this guy or any other guy was.

 

Rule of the law means rule of the law. It doesn't mean rule of the law for nice people.

 

The law needs to be applied consistently across the board and it needs to be constitutional. I highly doubt this one is constitutional, as BUSH wants it applied.

 

Our laws apply not only to US citizens but to everyone and anyone on US soil. When you get into treating foreigners on US soil as a different class of people, it gets into the extreme discrimination territory. I certainly will not support that kind of law. And the US Supreme Court must not support that kind of discrimination either.

 

If we allowed BUSH to have it his way, you couldn't stop the government from taking your wife away as an enemy combatant and you couldn't even challenge it in federal court. Whether or not she's guilty or innocent is irrelevant. What's relevant is that she or you wouldn't be able to challenge this absolute authority. That scares me! If it doesn't scare you, I don't understand what your vision of America is.

 

It's amazing that this action has been restricted in it's use since 9/11.

 

A considerable number of articles point to him not being such a nice guy and if we were at war with a country directly he would have been arrested as a spy without much being said.

Al Qaeda suspect declared 'enemy combatant'

 

The calling card usage to contact a paymaster was interesting as well as his reported training camp attendance.

 

Is it coincidental that he arrived in the US just prior to 9/11? Perhaps.

 

Pointing to this case and sliding down the slippery slope to include all immigrants is just a method to try to get people to only look at his immigrant status and not his actives.

[Randy W]

If you're so hot to help out I'm sure you could spend you time and money on his defense team.

 

NOT on Candle.

 

 

That's a bit much, Lee. The attitude is not wanted by anyone.

[Feathers268]

Looking at the article, I think the correct actions were taken. In WWII, he would have been shot as a spy under the Geneva convention or at the least be held as a prisoner of war. There is just too much suspicios IMO not to act on this.

If he was ignored, and something here blew up, people would be after Bush, and rightly so, for seeing and not acting. This a far cry from police marching down the street and detaining people for being imigrants. We have all sorts of immigrants in our legal system for all ranges of crimes who are not transfered to military custody. We don't even deport those that are here illegally.