So the constitution can be applied and not applied based on the whims of the government. Or at least that is what you seem to be offering. Its that sort of logic that lead to the detention camps of US citizens during WW2. They were detained simply because they parents, grandparents or in some cases several generations removed great grandparents had the bad luck to be born in Japan.
The Supreme Court has decided about 10 separate times on the issue of the individual rights and protections of foreign nationals. In all but the first few cases, the consensus has been that foreign nationals legally residing in the US have most of the same rights as US citizen, barring the right to vote. I pay taxes, I can be drafted if that law is changed again, I am subject to the exact same laws as any native born American. However the full implication of this law is that I can be detained without being able to let any one know about it, any counsel I retain can be ignored, as would due process. This is just and constitutional? What ever happened to equal protection. larry At 02:54 PM 6/2/02 -0400, you wrote: >Our constitution and laws are, at the most basic, meant to protect >citizens of the United States. Whether these protections apply >to foreign nationals is not part of our constitution - especially in times >of war. During peaceful times, America and its freedoms >are for citizens and non-citizens. In times of war, America has an >obligation and a right to do whatever is necessary to protect >its citizens. It's easy for other people to point the finger at America >because we have so many freedoms but, I assure you, that if >it's a matter of lessening the freedoms of foreign nationals in order to >protect America then that's what will happen. > >Howie > >----- Original Message ----- >From: "Jochem van Dieten" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >To: "CF-Community" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >Sent: Sunday, June 02, 2002 2:48 PM >Subject: Re: If you don't > > > > Howie Hamlin wrote: > > > America was attacked. America is at war. We are being attacked by > > > foreign nationals who disguise themselves as students. We have > > > a right to take action to defend ourselves - any other country would. > > > > Sure. But I wonder whether this is the best way to do that. I find it > > highly dubious to distinguish between nationals and non-nationals before > > and during trial. (It is quite accepted to do so after somebody is > > convicted, think for instance minors who get sentenced to shorter > > imprisonment for the same crime.) > > > > The entire system of prosecution has been crafted to ensure adequate > > protection for the suspect from wrongfull treatment. Why would foreign > > suspects be treated differently from American suspects and all of a > > sudden no longer require this protection? Why would it be necessary to > > have the right to hold them indefinitely without a trial? Either you > > have something you can convict him or he is innocent. > > This legislation touches on the very fundamental issue that somebody is > > innocent until proven guilty in a fair trial. > > > > I think that improving efficiency in certain law enforcement agencies > > would be much better than this act. > > > > Jochem > > > > > ______________________________________________________________________ This list and all House of Fusion resources hosted by CFHosting.com. The place for dependable ColdFusion Hosting. Archives: http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]/ Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/index.cfm?sidebar=lists
