US Can Hold Immigrants Indefinitely

Doug · Post by **Doug** » Tue Nov 14, 2006 2:32 pm

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.

In court documents filed with the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Richmond, Va., the Justice Department said a new anti-terrorism law being used to hold detainees in Guantanamo Bay also applies to foreigners captured and held in the United States.

See here.

Hogeye · Post by **Hogeye** » Tue Nov 14, 2006 3:33 pm

It would be interesting to see famous foreigners publicly refusing to come to the United States due to suspension of habeas corpus, kind of like George Bernard Shaw did after Moses Harman was imprisoned.

The British playwright George Bernard Shaw referred to Harman's last imprisonment in a letter to the New York Times of September 26, 1905, in which he explained why he would not be visiting the United States. Shaw declared, "The reason I do not go to America is that I am afraid of being...imprisoned like Mr. Moses Harman..." - Moses Harman: The Paradigm of A Male Feminist

Barbara Fitzpatrick · Post by **Barbara Fitzpatrick** » Wed Nov 15, 2006 9:52 am

There probably have been famous foreigners refusing to come to America - there are definitely not so famous ones who've done so. We just don't see it on the MSM. This is the real "slippery slope" to tyranny. First it's the "terrorist detainees" and he wasn't stopped. Now it's the "alien detainees" and we'll see if he's stopped. If not, the next step is American citizens of some not particularly well-like minority. Give him the full two years and we may have a "president for life" because he will be up to using the "delay the election" authority and the "use the military to put down what I decide is not peaceable assembly" authority.

Hogeye · Post by **Hogeye** » Fri Nov 17, 2006 5:29 pm

The Dems have already shown that the US State can get away with murdering Americans if they practice a weird religion (Branch Davidians) or are accused of racism (Ruby Ridge), so your slippery slope is a real possibility. The first American president to suspend habeas corpus (and actually arrest political opponents and journalists) was another Republican, the tyrant warmonger Abraham Lincoln.

Barbara Fitzpatrick · Mon Nov 20, 2006 11:15 am

Actually, the first president to suspend habeas corpus was John Adams (Alien and Sedition Acts), however, none of the previous presidents who wanted it to be illegal for people to criticize the president have been given quite as many or as sweeping a range of dictatorial powers as W has gathered in the last 3 years. I pointed out to Boozman (in an email) that as of January, Nancy Pelosi will be "2 chicken bones" away from the presidency (lovely thought), and that he probably wouldn't like those dictatorial powers in the hands of President Pelosi. I haven't gotten a response, of course - but the Rs are wonderful at ignoring the potential results of their actions.

Hogeye · Post by **Hogeye** » Mon Nov 20, 2006 1:59 pm

There's no doubt that John Adams, using his Alien and Sedition Acts, had foreigners and even journalists unjustly arrested, and grossly violated civil liberties, but I don't see that he ever suspended habeas corpus. Do you have any citations for this, Barbara?

I'm not sure I agree that Bush has more sweeping powers than Lincoln got. Could Bush get away with burning American cities and mass-murdering Americans, or cordoning off part of Chicago for a domestic internment camp? Could Bush suspend a state legislature and fill it with soldiers to get the vote he wanted? Has Bush ordered the arrest of elected officials who disagree with him, or closed down newspapers critical of his administration? (Just to name a few...)

I agree that political factions tend to be incredibly naive, seeming to believe that only good guys (or their guys) will always be in power. E.g. If the central State has the power to bless abortion, then it has the power to prohibit abortion. I am pro-choice, but I am constantly amazed at the support for Roe v. Wade. It will (almost) be poetic justice if the central State outlaws abortion. Give the State the power, and you shouldn't be surprised if they use it in ways you don't want.

Post by **Savonarola** » Mon Nov 20, 2006 5:51 pm

Barbara Fitzpatrick wrote:... the Rs are wonderful at ignoring the potential results of their actions.

The Rs are wonderful at ignoring damn near anything, especially reality.

Barbara Fitzpatrick · Post by **Barbara Fitzpatrick** » Tue Nov 21, 2006 1:23 pm

Hogeye, Bush has those powers right now. He hasn't used them yet and I want them overturned before he does.