Posted on 12/22/2007 12:10:39 PM PST by Sub-Driver
A 1950 Plan: Arrest 12,000, Suspend Due Process By TIM WEINER
A newly declassified document shows that J. Edgar Hoover, the longtime director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation, had a plan to suspend habeas corpus and imprison some 12,000 Americans he suspected of disloyalty.
Hoover sent his plan to the White House on July 7, 1950, 12 days after the Korean War began. It envisioned putting suspect Americans in military prisons.
Hoover wanted President Harry S. Truman to proclaim the mass arrests necessary to “protect the country against treason, espionage and sabotage.” The F.B.I would “apprehend all individuals potentially dangerous” to national security, Hoover’s proposal said. The arrests would be carried out under “a master warrant attached to a list of names” provided by the bureau.
The names were part of an index that Hoover had been compiling for years. “The index now contains approximately twelve thousand individuals, of which approximately ninety-seven per cent are citizens of the United States,” he wrote.
“In order to make effective these apprehensions, the proclamation suspends the Writ of Habeas Corpus,” it said.
Habeas corpus, the right to seek relief from illegal detention, has been a fundamental principle of law for seven centuries. The Bush administration’s decision to hold suspects for years at Guantánamo Bay, Cuba, has made habeas corpus a contentious issue for Congress and the Supreme Court today.
The Constitution says habeas corpus shall not be suspended “unless when in cases of rebellion or invasion, the public safety may require it.” The plan proposed by Hoover, the head of the F.B.I. from 1924 to 1972, stretched that clause to include “threatened invasion” or “attack upon United States troops in legally occupied territory.”
(Excerpt) Read more at nytimes.com ...
It is always easy to criticize the past using the benefit of hindsight.
DU will be in an uproar.
Those twelve thousand individuals would make in interesting research project; how many were a real threat and how many were only mislead by Communism’s false promises.
I bet the NYTimes had nothing to say about FDR in 1941, doing exactly what Hoover suggested.
The Left love to blur legitimate distinctions. They're not "suspects". They're foreigners and unlawful enemy combatants captured in the act of waging war against the United States or planning terrorist acts. They have no rights this country is bound to respect by law, only those we choose to give them. They could all be legally executed tomorrow.
I’d bet most of it was Hollywood........
I agree with your premise as it relates to Guantanamo. It’s just rediculous to assign full rights to folks who were engaged in terrorist activity and hell bent on destroying not only the United States and it’s citizens, but many other nations.
When Al Quaeda issues a cease and desist promise, and the war is behind us, I do believe guantanamo detainess should be evaluated for release in due time. That not being the case, those folks remain a threat and human waste until such a time as they are deemed no longer a threat.
If they have to remain Guantanamo until they are 99, that’s okay by me. The have chosen the life they lived, and the penalties for being a terrorist are never too tough IMO.
And Harry Truman read this report and did what with it?
Then you should propose a Constitutional Amendment to that effect, since there is no such restriction on habeas corpus in either the text of the Constitution, or in the English Common Law from which the concept is derived.
Half was Hollywood, and half was the State Department.
The only clue is that it had something to do with Korea.
But the terms "Communism", "Soviets", "Cold War", "Reds", "fellow travelers", etc. never make an appearance.
The editor will probably be disciplined, though, for not having taking advantage of the opportunity to take a shot at "McCarthyism".
To top it off, the article makes an inappropriate apple and orange comparison with Guantanamo.
To read the New York Times is to remain ignorant of the real world.
We can start with Harry Reid, Ted Kennedy, Dick Durban, John Murtha, Nancy Pelosi.....
This probably would have decapitated the DNC.
Truman and the rest of the Democrats were scurrying to cover up the number of Communists FDR had brought into the government during his reign. He did nothing, of course, except to prevent our military from achieving victory in Korea. The loss of American lives there and later on in Vietnam can and should be put squarely on the shoulders of those who were covering up for FDR.
I'd settle for 1)the deportation of every single illegal currently living in this country,2)the immediate (within 2 business days)deportation of every alien found in this country after #1 has been accomplished,3)mandatory reporting by every police agency (state,county,local) of all illegals,or suspected illegals to the INS within 12 hours of apprehension/contact,and 4)a very strict visa policy that has absolutely no provision for appeal...that is,if the INS says "no" then it's "case closed".
We the People of the United States... secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.
The US Constitution nor Geneva Convention infer any rights to citizens of other nations waring against us without uniforms.
Is there some reason you want to afford extra protection to your obvious enemies even if this puts your fellow citizens in harms way?
It would today too
Plans such as these were most likely requested by either the AG or WH for contingency purposes. The FBI had and has no powers consistent with that which this story suggests. At that time the total number of special agents was less than 5000.
Both documents "infer" (recognize) inalienable rights of all human beings. That cold, hard fact will remain no matter how childishly you rave against it.
But, just because all people have the right to life (for example,) doesn't mean there aren't any circumstances where people can be rightfully killed. Killing someone in self-defense is rightful, and is not murder. And that's true whether or not the person is a citizen of the United States. A person warring against you can rightfully be killed as a matter of self-defense against either the generalized actions of the group to which the individual belongs, or against the immediate actions of the individual himself.
The issue isn't whether killing and/or imprisoning our enemies is wrong. The issue is when, and under what circumstances, they can be imprisoned or killed based on non-judicial military decisions, and when such actions require court approval.
Is there some reason you want to afford extra protection to your obvious enemies even if this puts your fellow citizens in harms way?
Is there some reason you want to destroy any meaningful protection of habeas corpus? If it does not universally apply outside of a battle zone, and does not always apply in areas where civil law enforcement is fully operational, then Hillary (or an equivalent) may well declare any eeeeevil Conservative to be an "enemy combatant," lock him up and throw away the key. Is that really the system under which you want us all to live?
You failed to convince how US Constitution protects ununiformed combatants. Try again.
Hillary (or an equivalent) may well declare any eeeeevil Conservative to be an “enemy combatant,” lock him up and throw away the key. Is that really the system under which you want us all to live?
_____________________________________________________________
The Ramos and Compean families may believe we are living under that system already Sourcery.
It would be more interesting to pinpoint the 12,000 red-state versus blue-state distribution. I’m betting 90 percent were from blue-states.
blue state cities
Is the list on line anywhere?
We could surely use a man like Hoover now, when disloyalty is more the rule than the exception in Hollywood and the media, and when overt traitors like Reid and Pelosi infest the sacred halls of Congress.
Dang it, you've revealed the details of my plan to close Guantanamo when I'm elected president!
Both documents “infer” (recognize) inalienable rights of all human beings.
**********
I disagree. Words matter, thats why they are spelled out explicitly on paper.
Otherwise, without uniforms or recognition by governments, there is no honor.
These terrorists are dishonorable animals and are not equal to a soldier sent by a government to fight. imho
Terrorists are today’s equivalent of pirates and brigands who have always been seen as outside the law. Drum-head courts and summary execution have always been the way nations have dealt with such people.
Looks like Truman kept this a secret, huh?
We have ratified treaties regarding the treatment of enemy combatants whether uniformed or not uniformed. According to the Constitution, these treaties are part of the Supreme Law of the land.
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.