US: Immigrants may be held indefinitely

[C4Racer]

I keep seeing the same lines in this thread over and over....Criminal Courts or Normal Criminal Court System. These are NOT criminals, these are terrorists who are suspected of being involved in some manner of plotting terrorist activities. These ARE prisoners of war. The U.S. / Bush administration is treating them far better than the terrorists treat our soldiers when captured. Most of those in Gitmo will not reveal their real names and therefore can and will be held until such time as their true identity can be determined and proper investigations performed. You may not agree with the Bush administration or the way the war in Iraq is being fought, but there have been NO TERRORIST ATTACKS ON U.S. SOIL since Bush started detaining those with suspected ties to terrorist organizations.

 

Gitmo has had Red Cross inspections and there are no abuse issues to speak of, other than those perpertrated by the detainees on U.S. military personel.

 

I think that to detain thoese suspected of terrorist involvement is acceptable. Personally, I think all Islamic immigrants in the U.S. should be deported immediately and let them all apply for re-entry into the U.S. and be subjected to an intense background check and 2 year wait before being able to maybe return. And before anyone rips me about how many good Muslims there are and how this would be unfair to them, let me say "I don't care". This is our country and we should be able to do whatever is necessary to protect ourselves, fair or not. Killing innocent men, women and children through acts of terror is not fair either, but it happens regardless of what we think. Deport them all regardless of what they think.

 

I have said this before, I would love for this war to be over, but I know it will never end, ever. While our troops are in Iraq, that country has become a magnet for every nutcase Islamic terrorist in search of 72 virgins. As much as I would love for our troops to come home, and I have many friends with children serving in Iraq, I know that as long as we have a military presence in Iraq, the terrorists will stay away from U.S. soil.

 

One thing that must be understood about these people is that they have absolutely no respect for human life. If they are willing to kill each other in order to carry on a war that has been raging in their country for hundreds of years. Do you really think they will ever care about us? Their whole religious belief is one of "believe as I do or die". Regardless of whether you are Muslim or not, everything you do that is not in compliance with the teachings of the Koran is considered as an insult to Allah and therefore must be punished. You cannot reason with someone with this kind of mindset. Ship them all home and let them re-apply for re-entry in the U.S.

 

As an aside I will say that I do not believe that the true teachings of the Koran is to kill all non-believers. This is proven by the terrorists who when on camera cover their faces to avoid being identified. The founding fathers of our country not only did not hide their faces when fighting for something they truly believed in, but signed their names and pledged their lives and fortunes in pursuit of a just cause.

 

NUFF SAID!!!

 

Sorry, but just because I am against this one item from becoming law doesn't mean I don't support Bush and the reason for the troops in Iraq. I fully support the US effort in Iraq. Also think we ended the first one too early. We should have gotten Sadam then.

 

Just because we are in a war is no reason to give up hard fought for rights. If it just stayed with these terrorists at Gitmo, then there would be no discussion. But it doesn't stop there.

You refer to "these people" as if we can instantly tell from their looks or where they come from. Parts of the Middle East are our allies. They come from the same race and creed of people, so you can't just round them all up and send the home. It's just not that simple. Enemies and allies look alike, just like in Vietnam.

[warpedbored]

I'd like someone to dig out that saying by a German in WW2. Something about they came for them, but I didn't worry...They came for the other, but I didn't worry...then they came for me and no one was left.

http://www.ddaymuseum.org/pdf/edu_lp_Perso...sson%20Plan.pdf

 

The quote is by Pastor Martin Niemoller, 1945, You'll find it at the top of the second page.

 

This article also talks about responsibilty of crimes of WWII by being passive. Allowing Nazis to make laws, supporting the law because it did not apply to them and then doing nothing basically hiding behind the law. Crimes against humanity are just that crimes not matter how just the cause or who performs them.

 

I found to to be very interesting. This kind of thinking is exactly why we must fight against vague laws that allow people to be wisked away to prison without representation. It is what our fathers fought and died for. The best way to honor them is continue the fight.

Very well said Mike. Thank you.

[RLS]

If all it takes is someone's suspicion to tuck someone away, we all lose.

 

Well Don, I don't want to get off on another track, but - it has come to that. In our wonderful America, it has come to pointing the finger and suspicion. A young girl in a high school can say that the janitor looked at her in a way that made her feel uncomfortable. Now, he has been labled a "pervert" and has to prove that he meant no harm. It goes on his record and he will be under suspicion for the rest of his life. That is what our country has become. This is kind of related to our subject, but maybe needs a seperate thread.

[LeeFisher3]

So while we are speaking of Due Process, how does allowing a person who there is considered an imminent threat to harm our population by means of terrorist acts fall under due process?

U.S. Constitution: Fourteenth Amendment

SECTION 1. RIGHTS GUARANTEED: DUE PROCESS OF LAW

Because the police power is the least limitable of the exercises of government, such limitations as are applicable are not readily definable. These limitations can be determined, therefore, only through appropriate regard to the subject matter of the exercise of that power. ''It is settled [however] that neither the 'contract' clause nor the 'due process' clause had the effect of overriding the power of the state to establish all regulations that are reasonably necessary to secure the health, safety, good order, comfort, or general welfare of the community; that this power can neither be abdicated nor bargained away, and is inalienable even by express grant; and that all contract and property [or other vested] rights are held subject to its fair exercise.'' Insofar as the police power is utilized by a State, the means employed to effect its exercise can be neither arbitrary nor oppressive but must bear a real and substantial relation to an end which is public, specifically, the public health, public safety, or public morals, or some other phase of the general welfare.

Let's not just throw buzz words out like "Due Process" without considering the other few thousand words that help define this term. One item comes to mind like Public Safety.

 

It's fine to have problems with the current law, but how about providing a reasonable solution to the problem, otherwise you are just bitching and whining.

[Trigg]

So while we are speaking of Due Process, how does allowing a person who there is considered an imminent threat to harm our population by means of terrorist acts fall under due process?

U.S. Constitution: Fourteenth Amendment

SECTION 1. RIGHTS GUARANTEED: DUE PROCESS OF LAW

Because the police power is the least limitable of the exercises of government, such limitations as are applicable are not readily definable. These limitations can be determined, therefore, only through appropriate regard to the subject matter of the exercise of that power. ''It is settled [however] that neither the 'contract' clause nor the 'due process' clause had the effect of overriding the power of the state to establish all regulations that are reasonably necessary to secure the health, safety, good order, comfort, or general welfare of the community; that this power can neither be abdicated nor bargained away, and is inalienable even by express grant; and that all contract and property [or other vested] rights are held subject to its fair exercise.'' Insofar as the police power is utilized by a State, the means employed to effect its exercise can be neither arbitrary nor oppressive but must bear a real and substantial relation to an end which is public, specifically, the public health, public safety, or public morals, or some other phase of the general welfare.

Let's not just throw buzz words out like "Due Process" without considering the other few thousand words that help define this term. One item comes to mind like Public Safety.

 

It's fine to have problems with the current law, but how about providing a reasonable solution to the problem, otherwise you are just bitching and whining.

QUOTE(stacato @ Nov 17 2006, 02:41 PM)

 

 

QUOTE(Trigg @ Nov 17 2006, 01:34 PM)

 

 

QUOTE(stacato @ Nov 17 2006, 02:20 PM)

 

 

QUOTE(Trigg @ Nov 17 2006, 01:15 PM)

 

 

QUOTE(RLS @ Nov 17 2006, 02:00 PM)

 

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 in defiantly on 'suspicion' with no legal recourse wreaks of fascism--not of freedom!!

 

 

 

It seems like they don't want to take even a slight chance of them getting out, because of the danger involved. Don't forget we are talking about terrorists, who can inflict serious damage on mass population, not regular criminals. But what you suggest will probably have the same effect. The suspect will not be able to get out.

 

 

We are talking about 'suspected terrorists'. They aren't terrorists until a judge/jury says they are. Still, our court system allows for the potential danger a person may be and the courts can, and do, often set bonds so high, or allow no bonds, in order to protect society and all they need is EVIDENCE, not suspicions!.

 

 

Read the above Lee--then quit your whining and bitching, the boogie man ain't gonna come take you in your sleep!!!!!!!

[C4Racer]

So far, in arguing if this law is good or not we have been talking about due process of law. How it should apply to everyone and what are threats if we allow it to happen. Some of us say the law is too vague, so it is a bad law. Others, say, so what, it must be good because we don't offer a solution. I sorry, hope I don't piss some off too bad, but this kind of thinking is just down right naive and assinine. It is the same thinking that say, Hmm. I cut my finger, I am bleeding a little bit. You didn't give me a band-aid (solution) so therefore, let me amputate my arm!!!!

 

Let's tackle this arguement a little different. This type of solution has been done in the US before, it is nothing new. We don't even have to think too far back, just to WWII. The internment of the Japanese. We were at war with Japan and everyone felt the threat. Especially with the bombing of Pearl Harbor. Solution, round up all of the people of Japanese desent, even if they were born in America. So what if they had never been to Japan.

 

Quote from a plague at the Poston Relocation Center:

"...May it serve as a constant reminder of our past so that Americans in the future will never again be denied their constitutional rights and may the remembrance of that experience serve to advance the evolution of the human spirit..."

 

These Japanese Americans, half of whom were children, were incarcerated for up to 4 years, without due process of law or any factual basis, in bleak, remote camps surrounded by barbed wire and armed guards.

 

Guess what? In the entire course of the war, 10 people were convicted of spying for Japan, all of whom were Caucasian.

 

So where does that leave us? Shall we repeat history and allow for the internment of any one suspected of being a terrorist? Suspected, just like the Japanese were. Result, was the internment of about 120,000 people. All imprisoned under the auspices of, "We are at war. This is the enemy."

 

Some reading regarding internment of the Japanese.

http://www.pbs.org/childofcamp/history/index.html

http://www.geocities.com/Athens/8420/main.html

 

You should read this and study it well, before you buy into the idea we should intern anyone who is just suspected. I find it interesting because of "THE HOLOCUST", it is so easy to miss or forget our own countries injustices during much of World War II. Or is it okay, because it was done by us against them?

[LeeFisher3]

Read the above Lee--then quit your whining and bitching, the boogie man ain't gonna come take you in your sleep!!!!!!!

Anyone who believes the civil courts are willing to exercises their authority and hold someone based on suspicion of terrorist intentions has either been in a coma for the last 50 years or holds to a value our judges and law makers discounted long ago.

 

Release of habitual sex offenders and child molesters back into the general population should be proof enough of the courts lack of ability or willingness to make the attempt to try to protect the general welfare of the community.

 

A read of the 14th Amendment shows that Due Process is a floating bar and not a hard and fast line in the sand, some throw the word around as if it has a fixed meaning that everyone should obviously know, but in truth it is meant to vary based upon the circumstances.

 

My whining is about people whining about the current status quo and not willing to present any form of realistic alternative.

[Trigg]

Read the above Lee--then quit your whining and bitching, the boogie man ain't gonna come take you in your sleep!!!!!!!

Anyone who believes the civil courts are willing to exercises their authority and hold someone based on suspicion of terrorist intentions has either been in a coma for the last 50 years or holds to a value our judges and law makers discounted long ago.

 

Release of habitual sex offenders and child molesters back into the general population should be proof enough of the courts lack of ability or willingness to make the attempt to try to protect the general welfare of the community.

 

A read of the 14th Amendment shows that Due Process is a floating bar and not a hard and fast line in the sand, some throw the word around as if it has a fixed meaning that everyone should obviously know, but in truth it is meant to vary based upon the circumstances.

 

My whining is about people whining about the current status quo and not willing to present any form of realistic alternative.

So you are saying we can trust 'suspicion' over our courts system?? sShould we abandon this system for vigilante law?? Should we yield to our cowardism and abandon what so many have bled for in order to feel 'safe'? yYou can do just that--but damned if i will!!

[jemmyell]

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

speaking of quotes... This topic made me think of Donne's "For whom the bell tolls" (which Hemingway made famous as a book).

 

Here's the entire passage:

"No man is an island, entire of itself; every man is a piece of the continent, a part of the main. If a clod be washed away by the sea, Europe is the less, as well as if a promontory were, as well as if a manor of thy friend's or of thine own were: any man's death diminishes me, because I am involved in mankind, and therefore never send to know for whom the bells tolls; it tolls for thee." -- John Donne

 

Basically the passage shows a similar construction: Any ONE person is simply a part of the whole, even death comes to all equally... As well, Laws get applied to ALL equally.. and that's the rub of this one that many of us have an issue with; we know our we (or our SOs) are not terrorist, but either of us can fall into this lethal law...

 

Searching for the full passage, I found this interesting article.. with comments from G.W., no not the president.. well, yes the president.. but the first one...

 

 

For Whom the Bell Tolls

 

A short quote from the link above.

 

The Bush administration had its own muddled reasons for targeting Hussein and Iraq and would not be dissuaded. That dreadful haemorrhaging in Iraq will not be easily stemmed. In three years, the financial costs of the Iraq war have exceeded the combined estimates for rebuilding the railroad system, repairing the education system, restoring the health of social security, and guaranteeing the pension of every worker in the USA. With more than 2,500 dead and over 18,000 wounded, the human costs are also already staggering.

 

-James

[SirLancelot]

I see this is getting a bit off the original subject with comments about child molesters and the court system.

 

 

 

From what I see, this new law is a piggy back on the Patriot Act. Talk about an oxymoron, Partiot Act. Seems to me that the true patriots are those who have spoken out against it.

 

I couldn't agree with this sentiment more. It's an outrage to me that those who willingly give up their rights think they are being more patriotic. We must vigorously speak out against this draconian police state mentality. It will eventually turn this country into North Korea or Cuba, at the rate we're going.

 

Make no mistake, those who are advocating for this Patriot Act and the like are indeed advocating for a very strict and draconian police state.

[Trigg]

I see this is getting a bit off the original subject with comments about child molesters and the court system.

 

 

 

From what I see, this new law is a piggy back on the Patriot Act. Talk about an oxymoron, Partiot Act. Seems to me that the true patriots are those who have spoken out against it.

I hate to admit it--bit I agree with you 100%!!!!!!!

[david_dawei]

The current appears to exempt US citizens, but the term 'foreigners' is a little ambiguous. After all, foreigners do become naturalized citizens. Are green card holders exempt? HB-1 holders? Students? It's not clear to me where that line is drawn. Once the ball gets rolling and we hear how many threats have been removed, how long will it be until it also applies to citizens? Remember Timothy McVey?

 

Bill Lets U.S. Citizens Be Held as Enemy Combatants

 

Former White House lawyer Bradford Berenson says the new detainee bill is consistent with what courts have said about the president's right to imprison U.S. citizens as enemy combatants.

 

Michael Ratner, president of the Center for Constitutional Rights, says the legislation offers U.S. citizens little protection beyond the ability to challenge their appeal. Under the bill, he says, "This administration can simply pick up American citizens and hold them."

Edited November 18, 2006 by DavidZixuan (see edit history)

[Linbar]

OK, let me start by saying I found this thread very interesting as it got me thinking. Let me also say I don't know what is the answer between protecting the people and getting the bad guys. The potential loss of freedoms is a major concern. But as I said, it has got me thinking and I discovered that I don't know the answers to some simple questions. Perhaps you guys can help me.

 

Does the Constitution and amendments apply to just citizens or everybody living in this country? Like, does an accused "terrorist" have a right to bare arms or must they have sleeves?

 

Isn't the right to a speedy and public trial applicable to "criminals".

 

Are "terrorists" legally "criminals"? I am thinking that for the most part the suspects haven't actually done anything, "just" maybe planning to kill everyone.

 

Would suspected (accused) terrorists be protected from "unfair" (or whatever the correct terminolgy is) bail demands?

 

Does anybody know if any of the haebus corpus delicatessen rules ( or whatever that thingy is) can get accused "terrorist" released, "pending" and trust they will turn up for a trial?

 

I know there are some strong feelings on this subject on both sides but it seems to me there are no simple answers yet to resolve this. And my first question is really bugging me .

Thanks

 

Oh another question, is there a spell check on this?

[Trigg]

OK, let me start by saying I found this thread very interesting as it got me thinking. Let me also say I don't know what is the answer between protecting the people and getting the bad guys. The potential loss of freedoms is a major concern. But as I said, it has got me thinking and I discovered that I don't know the answers to some simple questions. Perhaps you guys can help me.

 

Does the Constitution and amendments apply to just citizens or everybody living in this country? Like, does an accused "terrorist" have a right to bare arms or must they have sleeves?

 

Isn't the right to a speedy and public trial applicable to "criminals".

 

Are "terrorists" legally "criminals"? I am thinking that for the most part the suspects haven't actually done anything, "just" maybe planning to kill everyone.

 

Would suspected (accused) terrorists be protected from "unfair" (or whatever the correct terminolgy is) bail demands?

 

Does anybody know if any of the haebus corpus delicatessen rules ( or whatever that thingy is) can get accused "terrorist" released, "pending" and trust they will turn up for a trial?

 

I know there are some strong feelings on this subject on both sides but it seems to me there are no simple answers yet to resolve this. And my first question is really bugging me .

Thanks

 

Oh another question, is there a spell check on this?

http://www.iespell.com/download.php I use this--it's the only one of your questions i can answer.

[LeeFisher3]

I see this is getting a bit off the original subject with comments about child molesters and the court system.

 

 

 

From what I see, this new law is a piggy back on the Patriot Act. Talk about an oxymoron, Partiot Act. Seems to me that the true patriots are those who have spoken out against it.

Those who insisted in this thread that the current case and detainment should be handled by the court system along with suggestions that that same court system would be more than adequate to handle the extended detainment of these people need to remember their track record.