Skip to comments.Judge Rules That U.S. Has Broad Powers to Detain Noncitizens Indefinitely
Posted on 06/15/2006 1:41:05 AM PDT by neverdem
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.
Lawyers in the suit, who vowed to appeal yesterday's decision, said parts of the ruling could potentially be used far more broadly, to detain any noncitizen in the United States for any reason.
"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..."
(Excerpt) Read more at nytimes.com ...
Pardon me, but that's Ethel Rosenberg.
We already do.
>>Pardon me, but that's Ethel Rosenberg.<<
I thought they got their charges presented, had lawyers and a trial. I'm pretty sure they were even allowed to appeal and it eventually got to the supreme court.
If I didn't catch it, I should be declared demented. All this idiocy about not reading the NY Times dumfounds me. It's their party organ, without any shame!
Spot on....now go read your FREEPmail. :-)
She's Also head of the Lawyer's Union (new York??) , a COMMUNIST PARTY organization.......
Funny how the NYT will NEVER tell you she's an avowed Communist, eh??
Thank you Judge Gleeson. It is a prudent and reasonable ruling on what the law actually is.
I'd guess that most of these detainees are claiming they will be tortured if returned to their country of origin, and subsequently it may take years to get rid of them. In the meantime, releasing them with an order to appear for a deportation hearing has not exactly been effective in the past. If just one of them is released and subsequently commits a terrorist act, the media outcry of crocodile tears will have the usual element of amnesia with regard to the indefinite detention issue.
Are you the Spelling Police?? :O
This doesn't apply to ILLEGAL ALIENS, only to legal residents and citizens. People who are here illegally have no rights under the law. Spin all you want, the constitution is not for illegals, the constitution also gives each state the right to determine who is a legal resident or citizen within their state. Don't take one article out of context and try to justify illegal aliens being here and having rights. The only right they have is the right to be deported, and the sooner the better.
Nice take, all of it. Excerpting part I would reply to.........
The US government, and all of its trappings, and agencies, have been turned into a huge psychotherapy machine, designed to mobolize government power---and tax assets---to subsidize and shore-up the self-esteem problems of various hyphenated groups.
Anyone with a chip on their shoulder can claim victimization, persecution, discrmination, and is encouraged to apply for sanctuary on our shores which entitles then to numerous tax-subsidized financial benefits, head-of-the-line citizenship, and various other preference-based gov't programs.....all at our expense.
It's a big con game. To some of these scam artists, a day without "victimization" is like a day without sunshine.
Our lawmakers justify just about any tax-paid travesty as long as they're "feeling-good" about being "tolerant and compassionate" and can nail down campaign contributions and votes in the process, from various hyphenates.
Okay Nelson, let's hear it : "Ha ha!"
The rosenbergs: still undermining America, even from the grave.
I think that the 13th Amendment is also probably relevant:
Section 1. Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.
Just curious, but where do get that interpretation? The text of the 14th amendment just says, "...any person...", without specifying their citizenship status.
I don't like illegal immigration any more than any one else but I think all persons subject to US jurisdiction have "rights", even those jailed or interned.
There are many categories of people whose rights may be curtailed by circumstances or condition; serving soldiers, POWs, interned enemy aliens during wartime, convicted criminals, juveniles, those judged mentally unfit.
Hopefully he awarded attorney's fees... with extreme prejudice.
"If this stands I wonder if this will be reciprocal - will we accept that other countries have the right to hold Americans who violate their visas (or don't have a visa) indefinitely without explanation?"
That was a rhetorical question, right?
The Rove mind meld is very powerful.
Thanks for that info.
I forget the article and don't have time to look it up right now, you can research if you want, but ALL states, not the feds, have the right to determine who will be citizens or legal residents, this right is specifically given to the states. Also, use your head, if people who are here illegally have the same rights as legal residents and citizens then everyone, the world over, has those rights also, because not only are illegal aliens not legal residents, they are NON residents, they have no legal right to be here, therefore they have no rights other than to be treated humanely as we deport their criminal butts back to where they belong.
Who would have thought it could happen in Brooklyn?
That LINK is VERY informative...Thanks!!
"Rachel Meeropol, IIRC, is the granddaughter of the convicted and executed Julius and Ethel Rosenberg. "
The Meeropol name jumped out at me ... thanks for drawing that connection.
Traitors and enemies have enablers, and she seems happy to play that role.
It was written without any of the exceptions that you find in the Bill of Rights. "Time of war or public danger etc." I have no idea why that wasn't put in there, but it wasn't. It says what it says.
Strip away the hyperventilation of the lefwing ACLU types, and what you have is a ruling that says the US Government can detain illegal aliens of its choosing, while it investigates other potential risks and crimes of said individuals.
Govts ability to detain illegal aliens should not be in question, the ACLU types were trying to get some equalprotection get-out-jail-free card. No such luck.
Convicted, executed, and proven indisputably guilty by the Venona transcripts. May they roast in hell. I spit on their graves.
Here's the lovely young traitoress.
>>Rachel Meeropol, IIRC, is the granddaughter of the convicted and executed Julius and Ehtel Rosenberg. Pardon me, but this is why the left must be monitored, i.e. reading the NY Times.<<
Hey lets be fair. Journalistic integrity requires the NY Times to diclose when someone has an obvious motive.
They printed the same day the faxt that Meeropol is the name that the Rosenberg boys took after their parent's death. Of course you had had to look in another section of the paper and read the bok reviews and then guess that Rachel was the daughter of one of the brother.
BTW, the book review makes it clear that the Rosenbergs were guilty and that the Meerpol's won't accept the obvious.
I guess mentioning that in the same story would have been an "inconvenient truth."
>>With the collapse of the Soviet Union, former K.G.B. agents began to talk, in particular Alexander Feklisov, who had been Julius Rosenberg's K.G.B. contact, and to whom Rosenberg had supplied classified military and industrial information. What did Meeropol make of that? Why should Feklisov be believed, he wondered; K.G.B. agents were hardly ''paragons of honesty.'' Then, in 1995, the Venona transcripts -- the decryptions of Soviet intelligence telegrams from the 1940's and 50's -- were released. The decrypted material told much of the story of an extensive military and industrial spy ring run by Julius Rosenberg, with Ethel's knowledge if not her participation; and the material confirmed the testimony of Ethel's brother, David Greenglass, about his recruitment by Julius to pass on to Harry Gold, a courier for the Soviets, whatever he could pick up about the atomic bomb from his work at Los Alamos.
Meeropol now had to deal with damaging information from a variety of sources (including old friends of the Rosenbergs). But such is the power of a fixed idea that Meeropol believed it was still possible that all of this evidence was ''no more than the clever creation of mirror images based on the known record.'' Finally, however, he was forced to reflect that innocence wasn't everything: ''Whatever actions'' his parents ''took sprang from their love of humanity,<<
Fugly....Thank God for the Venona Papers!!
The Govt has the rightful power to detain illegal aliens lawbreakers, with or without a war going on. This isn't hard to figure out.
Goodness, I hope so.
Well it certainly should have that rightful power, but it does seem to be at odds with that 14th amendment.
Government detention of illegal aliens is *not* against the 14th amendment, or our immigration laws would be a chaos.
Of course, by reciprocity, other countries have broad powers to detain US citicizens indefinitely.
Goodness, I hope so.
I don't have a problem with racial profiling, but with Islam it can be a problem, e.g. look at folks in Albania, Thailand and the Philippines.
If they were detained on a battlefield, I don't have a problem.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.