US: Immigrants may be held indefinitely

[LeeFisher3]

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.

I ask you what law protects you and me against suspected terrorists?

 

We have so-called intellegence agencies and investigative agencies who present their evidence in the guise of protecting the citizens of this country. At this level they present it to whomever is in the office of the President at the time and a decission is made. Now you can suggest that this is an easy stroke of the pen without ever knowing the evidence, but you would be a fool to think any person in that office would take signing such a document lightly.

 

You might not agree with the decission, but then you only know what the media has told you about it.

[SirLancelot]

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.

 

The point being that it could be done and the ones detained would have no recourse.

 

I think some are missing the point about the recourse and appeals. I'm not arguing about the guilt or innocence of this man. Indeed he may be guilty. If found guilty and you want to shoot him as a spy, fine. But allow him access to our court system like any other criminal suspect.

 

I think you're only ok with this because you sincerely think your wife would never be hauled in under this law. But what if she was hauled in and you never get a chance to appeal or contest it? She could rot in who knows where and no one would know when she'd get out. How would you feel then? The way the Bush administration wants to apply this law, it could absolutely happen. He wants that kind of power without any kind checks and balances.

[SinoTexas]

All I can say is that the people have voted last Tuesday. We'll see what happens come January.

 

As aye,

 

Jim

[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.

 

The point being that it could be done and the ones detained would have no recourse.

 

I think some are missing the point about the recourse and appeals. I'm not arguing about the guilt or innocence of this man. Indeed he may be guilty. If found guilty and you want to shoot him as a spy, fine. But allow him access to our court system like any other criminal suspect.

 

I think you're only ok with this because you sincerely think your wife would never be hauled in under this law. But what if she was hauled in and you never get a chance to appeal or contest it? She could rot in who knows where and no one would know when she'd get out. How would you feel then? The way the Bush administration wants to apply this law, it could absolutely happen. He wants that kind of power without any kind checks and balances.

IMO, this does not fall into the criminal court system. If so, 9/11 was a crime and not an act of war. I'm no interested in shooting anyone but I was making the point that we are at war with radical Islam. Some may not want to admit this but like it or not we have been since the first WTC attack in 93. If the previous administration had looked at it then as warfare instead of a criminal act, the towers might still be standing. I'm not slaming Clinton, noone in the US was willing to see it for what it is. The Constitution is not a suicide pact. If the military needs to detain people for suspected terrorist type activities, so be it. I can't see it growing to include anyone on the street for any crime no matter how small. I think I have a much better chance of being picked up and "disapearing" while visiting China than Jen or anyone else having that happen here. And when there, it never crossed my mind.

[RLS]

I see this thread going political.

 

I would only add that too much power given to one individual has never been a good thing in the history of mankind. We always, always must have checks and balances. Don mentioned the Patriot Act. In my opinion it reaches much too far and jeopardizes the freedoms that our soldiers have died for. Absolute power corrupts absolutely.

[SirLancelot]

I see this thread going political.

 

I would only add that too much power given to one individual has never been a good thing in the history of mankind. We always, always must have checks and balances. Don mentioned the Patriot Act. In my opinion it reaches much too far and jeopardizes the freedoms that our soldiers have died for. Absolute power corrupts absolutely.

 

Amen! 100% agree.

[stacato]

It's us or them. Anyone who hasn't soaked it in yet has a lack of comprehension as to what kind of people we are dealing with. Read the history of Islam and the Kuran and you'll get a grip. If this is what it takes to stop them, it's fine with me. (And I am sure would have been fine with the 3000 plus that died at the WTC). My life, my family's life, my country's life comes before their freaking constitutional rights. Period .End of story.

[C4Racer]

I see this thread going political.

 

I would only add that too much power given to one individual has never been a good thing in the history of mankind. We always, always must have checks and balances. Don mentioned the Patriot Act. In my opinion it reaches much too far and jeopardizes the freedoms that our soldiers have died for. Absolute power corrupts absolutely.

 

Amen! 100% agree.

 

I must also agree 100%. This law goes way too far and is much too vague.

 

You ony have to be suspected to be arrested under this law. That means any immigrant a terrorist talks with could be detained without recourse. Wrong use of power.

 

I agree we need to stop terrorists before they attack. The government's track record is also not the best, but giving them this kind of power will not correct the mistakes they make. It will only make matters worse.

[LeeFisher3]

I see this thread going political.

 

I would only add that too much power given to one individual has never been a good thing in the history of mankind. We always, always must have checks and balances. Don mentioned the Patriot Act. In my opinion it reaches much too far and jeopardizes the freedoms that our soldiers have died for. Absolute power corrupts absolutely.

 

Amen! 100% agree.

 

I must also agree 100%. This law goes way too far and is much too vague.

 

You ony have to be suspected to be arrested under this law. That means any immigrant a terrorist talks with could be detained without recourse. Wrong use of power.

 

I agree we need to stop terrorists before they attack. The government's track record is also not the best, but giving them this kind of power will not correct the mistakes they make. It will only make matters worse.

No arguement that the law is vague and we need to be proactive in protecting our people and home.

 

But can you offer a better solution to deal with the threat?

 

People and our government would listen.

[Randy W]

Due process. I don't know what the provedure is for legally imprisoning someone who is a real threat, but I guarantee that if the government had 'listened' prior to 9/11, it would not have occurred.

[Danax]

 

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.

We have to be very careful not to give the government too much power because there's a fine line between a foreign "enemy combatant" and a citizen defined the same way. The fear of being held indefinitely based solely on the Government's suspicions is the ultimate form of terror; no one would dare speak out against them.

 

I think that truly, Bush is trying very hard to implement as much of the "New World Order" as quickly as he can. This is just another small link in the chain that will eventually bind us all.

[RLS]

I ran across this quote by Thomas Jefferson and I thought it might be appropriate on this thread:

 

Those who desire to give up Freedom in order to gain Security, will not have, nor do they deserve, either one.

 

Thomas Jefferson

Edited November 17, 2006 by RLS (see edit history)

[Trigg]

I ran across this quote by Thomas Jefferson and I thought it might be appropriate on this thread:

 

Those who desire to give up Freedom in order to gain Security, will not have, nor do they deserve, either one.

 

Thomas Jefferson

Amen!! Old Tom was a bright guy!!

[stacato]

I ran across this quote by Thomas Jefferson and I thought it might be appropriate on this thread:

 

Those who desire to give up Freedom in order to gain Security, will not have, nor do they deserve, either one.

 

Thomas Jefferson

Amen!! Old Tom was a bright guy!!

 

How am I giving up my own freedom? I am not a terrorist, and I am not a suspected terrorist, nor will I ever be one.

[Trigg]

I ran across this quote by Thomas Jefferson and I thought it might be appropriate on this thread:

 

Those who desire to give up Freedom in order to gain Security, will not have, nor do they deserve, either one.

 

Thomas Jefferson

Amen!! Old Tom was a bright guy!!

 

How am I giving up my own freedom? I am not a terrorist, and I am not a suspected terrorist, nor will I ever be one.

Nor is the person being accused until prooven so. Why make them give up all rights to due process?? Why not simply set their bail so high that they can't get out until their case has been adjudicated?? To imprison indefinatley on 'suspicion' with no legal recourse wreaks of fascism--not of freedom!!

Edited November 17, 2006 by Trigg (see edit history)