Judge Rules That U.S. Has Broad Powers to Detain Noncitizens Indefinitely

[Rose Siding]

A federal judge in Brooklyn ruled yesterday that the government has wide latitude under immigration law to detain noncitizens on the basis of religion, race or national origin, and to hold them indefinitely without explanation.

The ruling came in a class-action lawsuit by Muslim immigrants detained after 9/11, and it dismissed several key claims the detainees had made against the government. But the judge, John Gleeson of United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York, allowed the lawsuit to continue on other claims, mostly that the conditions of confinement were abusive and unconstitutional. Judge Gleeson's decision requires top federal officials, including former Attorney General John Ashcroft and Robert S. Mueller III, the F.B.I. director, to answer to those accusations under oath.

This is the first time a federal judge has addressed the issue of discrimination in the treatment of hundreds of Muslim immigrants who were swept up in the weeks after the 2001 terror attacks and held for months before they were cleared of links to terrorism and deported. The roundups drew intense criticism, not only from immigrant rights advocates, but also from the inspector general of the Justice Department, who issued reports saying that the government had made little or no effort to distinguish between genuine suspects and Muslim immigrants with minor visa violations.
...
"This decision is a green light to racial profiling and prolonged detention of noncitizens at the whim of the president," said Rachel Meeropol, a lawyer for the Center for Constitutional Rights, which represented the detainees. "The decision is profoundly disturbing because it legitimizes the fact that the Bush administration rounded up and imprisoned our clients because of their religion and race."

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/06/15/nyregion/15detain.html?hp&ex=1150344000&en=97bf745092af4a37&ei=5094&partner=homepage

[rodeodance]

1. whow, this is horrible--to be detained by race and or religion.

"This decision is a green light to racial profiling and prolonged detention of noncitizens at the whim of the president," said Rachel Meeropol, a lawyer for the Center for Constitutional Rights, which represented the detainees. "The decision is profoundly disturbing because it legitimizes the fact that the Bush administration rounded up and imprisoned our clients because of their religion and race."

[Robbien]

2. This legalizes concentration camps

Isn't this exactly the basis Russia, Germany, Cambodia, etc. used to herd non-desirables into their detention centers.

[Kagemusha]

4. Those non-desirables were for the most part, citizens.

Therefore the basis is not exactly the same, no. There's an important legal difference. I have more of a problem with the Jose Padilla case because that's much more in line with the statement you just made than what's at issue with this particular court ruling.

And just because the government can do something doesn't mean it should.

[WildClarySage]

8. Doesn't that just boil down to a technicality when we're hearing

headlines like "Americans facing home-grown terror threats"? I mean, how long before they decide that citizens who are also terrorists are fair game and we already know who decides who the terrorists are.

I'm curious about who appointed this judge to the federal bench.

[Kagemusha]

12. With all due respect it matters not who appointed this judge

The judge is correct that this is the law as it exists today. Now, The Decider decided that citizens who are also terrorists are fair game over three years ago! That is still being bounced around the court system. I'm sorry you don't like the law being built on technicalities like who is an American citizen or a permanent resident, but these distinctions matter in practice. The point is, it must be made clear this is not acceptable for American citizens on American soil. The rest is going to have to wait its turn.

The fact is, the judge isn't any more or less wrong about the law just because a Republican or a Democrat appointed him. Either he's right or he's not. If this is just about "conservative activist judges", it's just the same game being played by Tom DeLay.

[Toucano]

14. Citizenship doesn't matter.

Amendment XIV.

Section 1.

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Citizenship conveys certain priviliges, but all persons are protected the due process and equal protection clause.

[Kagemusha]

18. You are mistaken - it shouldn't matter.

But it does.

And that, currently, is the law of the land as recognized by previous courts dealing with immigration issues... as much as I don't happen to like it.

[Toucano]

27. No, they are mistaken.

Incorrectly established precedents were made to be struck down, i.e. Plessy v. Ferguson.

The language clearly shifts from "citizen" to "any person". The judiciary's current blindness to this shift doesn't excuse it or make it correct. Thus, the challenges to the blindness.

[Kagemusha]

38. I know I'm late in replying but, should lower courts strike higher courts?

I mean should a district judge strike down an incorrectly established precedent by a higher court that ought to be binding? Not that I'm familiar with if that's the case in this case but, I know this is hardly the first time this issue has been raised in a federal courtroom.

All I'm saying is that the proper place to strike this down would seem to be on appeal either way. I'm not sure THIS judge should have felt confident striking this down though, well, it appears he just plain didn't want to regardless.

[ixion]

23. 'any person'

that's pretty clear wording, no?

Any person, means any living human being, which means this judge ruled incorrectly in a bad, bad way. :grr:

[eagler]

31. Irregardless of what any judge says , this amendment

says what it says. And the GOP constantly complains about activist judges and how they tend to interpret the constitution to their own liking?

[kestrel91316]

32. Why should we pay any attention to the Constitution? It's obviously

just a piece of paper. Bush routinely wipes his sorry a-- with it.

[Igel]

35. And if the laws aren't equal ...

Is it permissible to require that those here on extended visas report their locations if citizens don't have to?

If you can't deport citizens that commit felonies, can you deport non-citizens that commit felonies?

If there's a law restricting a government job to a citizen, and ruling out non-citizens, how is that due process and equal rights? Answer: a government job isn't a right, and the law, unequal, is applied equally. In other words, different due processes, different privileges.

That people of different citizenships can be treated differently is a no brainer; race and religion ... that's more of a stretch. I don't know if I like the ruling, but I haven't read the law it's based on. At least not yet.

[Toucano]

42. Of course they can be treated differently. That's not what I said.

The Constitution provides privileges to citizens.

It also extends protections to non-citizens. Protections such as DUE PROCESS.

This means that when accused of a crime, the accused will have a hearing. A process with charges, evidence, and the right to be heard. The government cannot simply detain someone without charges, evidence, or a hearing. To do so violates the United States Constitution AND customary international law which requires foreign visitors be guaranteed a minimum level of fairness and justice.

The ruling being discussed does not address DEPORTATION. The ruling says the U.S. government can detain and hold people without evidence or a hearing (religion or national origin actually isn't important because it's unconstitutional FOR ANY REASON).

Non-citizens are GUESTS and the United States is the HOST. Of course visitors can be required to report their location because they don't have a RIGHT to be in the United States. They are GUESTS. If a guest violates the law, they can be deported. Their visa can be canceled at will. But when the Visa is canceled, THEY CANNOT BE JAILED WITHOUT A TRIAL AND A CONVICTION. Again, this ruling isn't about deportation, however.

Laws that convey rights and privileges to citizens fall outside the boundaries of this discussion. Non-citizens do not have the right to vote or the right to be president or the right to hold a job that is restricted to citizens.

Equal protection under the law, however, applies to non-citizens as well. For example, a non-citizen with a legally valid visa cannot be denied housing under the fair housing act. That is not a privilege that requires citizenship according to the law. A non-citizen with a legally valid visa cannot legally be denied employment or education because of sex, religion or national origin. The law protects all PERSONS equally.

Citizens and non-citizens are not equal states of being. That's not what I or any other person has argued.

What I do argue is that citizenship makes no difference in regard to due process and equal protection. Due process doesn't have to be the same, but there must be a process. This ruling says no process is needed. It says a guest in this country can be detained and denied liberty and property without any evidence, hearing, or counsel. That is unconstitutional.

[Toots]

40. I think The Constitution applies to all within the USA not just citizens.

But we all know what Republicans think about the Constitution. T%he difference between a Conservative and a Liberal is Conservatives wrap themselves in the flag and burn the Constitution while Liberals wrap themselves in the constitution and burn the flag..

[Tom Jefferson]

19. It does...?

:rofl:

[TechBear_Seattle]

3. This will do wonders for the tourist industry

I can see the "positive" spin already being drawn up at the White House....

America: Come for a weekend, stay for a lifetime.

[AlCzervik]

7. and they'll add "Clinton appointed him"

[Toucano]

11. What happens in Gitmo, stays in Gitmo.

So why shouldn't you?

[struggle4progress]

15. I hope travel agents warn foreign tourists not to photograph our landmarks

[anotherdrew]

5. they'll do the same to CITIZENS. they'll do whatever they please

think you can stop them? go ahead and try...

it's in the patriot act... they'll pick you off the street and you'll never be seen or heard from again if they so wish. No one will even know for sure the "authorities" have you. Think your fellow citizens will give a damn? of course they wont, you must have been a troublemaker. the few who do, it's just a matter of time 'til they disappear too. Perhaps the media will tut tut about an upsurge in apparent kidnappings and that'll justify some more crackdowns and tougher new laws.

no one even cares now, this is the situation we have now. not next week not next year, not someday in the future, they can take anyone anytime they want - right now.

oooo I know, maybe a 'demonstration' will help! let's march and sign petitions so we can make their list for them...

[ninkasi]

6. One immediate thought...

because the Founding Fathers wrote into the Constitution that there should be no establishment of religion, how would it be in any way legal to detain persons of ANY religion. The government is supposed to be completely neutral on the subject. How would the right-wing feel if, a few years from now, the government decides that being a Protestant christian is worthy of being imprisoned? This is simply unbelievable. I don't know my own country anymore. The people now in power are ruthless, corrupt, and power hungry. I can't believe the world I'm living in now. The same thing goes for race. Bush has destroyed what the old USSR wasn't able to.

[happyslug]

26. To see how far we have gone on this road

Madison when he first proposed the Bill of Rights had the Second Amemdment include an exception for people whose relgion forbad them to bare arms. When it was pointed out to him that such a clause could be used by a future Government to justify disarming whole segments of the population based on that segments oppostion to the sitting government (And thus they unwillingness for "Relgious Reasons" to bare arms for the Government), he removed the exception.

The reason for this was that while the Leadership of the US in the 1780s were willing to seperate Relgion from the State, the Technology to do so was not yet invented. State Reglions perfromed many functions now performed by Secular entilies, for example spreading news. It was not till the 1850s that what we would call newspapers were invented. Prior to that time Newspapers were monthy or weekly adverstiasments sheets whose publishers intended them to be kept for a long time and thus tended to only have long term articles as opposed to recent news. This started to change during the late 1700s but had not yet done so do to the limitation of using linen paper (Pulp paper and high speed presses permitted the issues of cheap daily Newspapers but that is NOT till the 1850s). For this reason most people received their news from the pulpit, not becasue they were more relgious than we are today, but it was the most cost effective wayt o get such information to the people. The Government would print out its proclamations and then have them read to people in the streets and pulpits.

At the same time the Federal Government had a HUGE input in the appoitnment of the First Catholic Bishop in the US and regullary used the Churches to send out messages to the People

[Erika]

9. How very sad for our country and all human rights

No wonder we are so hated in the world. We will reap what we sow.

[Toucano]

10. Ask not for whom the bell tolls.

It tolls for the United States of America.

That's it folks! It's over. The Constitution has been put on the curb like a moldy mattress. It's been a good couple of hundred years (if you were a white, heterosexual male property owner, I guess).

[Mythsaje]

13. At least he's not an activist judge...

:evilgrin:

[fooj]

16. No kidding!

B-) Excellent response.

[Nothing Without Hope]

17. K & R. This is terrible. Now they can openly use those big cocentration

camps they have been building. I'm betting the plan is for this to end up in the Bushie SCOTUS and become the new "law" of the empire.

[Vidar]

20. Tourists beware.

[PinkUnicorn]

24. Not just tourists

Do you really think that scientists, students, doctors, businessmen and specialists will be happy to visit the US to either provide their expertise, attend seminars, present papers, perform medical procedures, etc when there's a good chance they could be locked up for unspecified reasons for an indefinite time?

But I don't think it will matter really matter. After all "The US dont need no dumb furoner stuff. Gawd gives us everything direct" :sarcasm:

Though I wonder how loud the squealing would be if another country implemented this ruling - (say China, Russia or even Iran) if a US citizen was 'detailed for unspecified reasons for an indefinite time'?

[mom cat]

21. K&R ,,, and RAGE!

[LynnTheDem]

22. Holy fuck.

Good-bye, America, once the land of the free.

[Vinca]

25. When it's legal to establish gulags, our country is lost. nt

[shadowknows69]

28. Wait for it

the new law that states anyone engaged in suspicious terra activity is subject to immediate revocation of their citizenship.

[Posteritatis]

34. There were attempts at that during the previous term

If I remember correctly they actually drew a huge enough Howl of Outrage that the matter was dropped.

But yeah, they did try to come up with ways to revoke citizenship.

[The Stranger]

29. Terrorism fears legally justify creating concentration camps for Muslims.

And this, I fear, was done by design.

[Norquist Nemesis]

30. Hell-Oh SCOTUS!

Terrorists 1, Americans -1

[sakabatou]

33. This judgement will definitely go to appeals

[chill_wind]

36. K&R

Kick!

[tom_paine]

37. The million little steps that comprise the Fall of America are fascinating

to watch. Of course, they are also horrifying, as the German version in the 20s and 30s must have been.

But how great was the 224-year Old American Republic that it was so complicated to take apart at the joints that it took them this long.

I tell you, if we lived in ANY other nation that had been assualted by an evil segment of their population this large, active, and wealthy, we'd be in gulags ourselves now and we'd be seeing (well, not "we" exactly) the Penultimate Phase of the New Totalitarianism.

As it is now, we are in Early-Middle Transition Phase still, and for most of us life is OK to very good. The iron cage they are surrounding us with is still largely unpresent in an intrusive sense.

So, those Founding Fathers and the Civil War Union Men (and Women) and the Greatest Generation all combined to give us these extra years of twilight. We should be grateful to them.

Am I being sarcastic? A little. I guess I am looking for the "bright side" in the greatest disaster for humanity very possibly (time will tell) since 1933.

[The Stranger]

41. Excellent post.

Except that the "enemy" they endlessly parade is a phantom menace. Which makes sense, when you think about it: the better to control the "enemy," adjust its effect with the turn of a knob, and shape it to their own means. It is, indeed, The Power of Nightmares.

[treestar]

39. So I wonder if the new democratic government of Iraq has that

same right? :sarcasm:

[enough]

43. Too late to recommend this,

but it needs to stay visible. Kick.

[tanyev]

44. And how many people who applaud this would be outraged

if an American citizen were indefinitely detained in a foreign country?

[classysassy]

45. "Its a mad,mad world"

populated by bad men.