From: "mart" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: Fw: (CPUSA) New anti-terrorism law has civil libertarians worried ----- Original Message ----- From: SolidNet <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Monday, October 15, 2001 10:40 AM Subject: CP USA , New anti-terrorism law has civil libertarians worried http://www.solidnet.org News, documents and calls for action from communist and workers' parties. The items are the responsibility of the authors. Join the mailing list: info/subscribe/unsubscribe mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] . ============================================================================ CP USA , New anti-terrorism law has civil libertarians worried ------------------------------------------------------------------------ From: RedNet, 15/10/01 http://www.cpusa.org , mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] ============================================================================ People's Weekly October 13, 2001 Edition. New anti-terrorism law has civil libertarians worried By Emile Schepers Under cover of preventing new terrorist attacks, the Bush administration is trying to push through draconian new legislation that could strip non-citizens, even those legally in the country, of many Bill of Rights protections. Though civil and constitutional rights advocates and some Democratic - and even Republican - members of Congress are trying to stop the most repressive components of the new law, it is clear the Bill of Rights is in danger of becoming a casualty of the current efforts against terrorism. The "Mobilization Against Terrorism Act," would take already wide-ranging powers of the government to act against non-citizens in ways it could not constitutionally do against citizens, and expand them greatly. The National Lawyers' Guild warns that this legislation "radically short-circuits procedures designed to distinguish the innocent from the guilty ... it essentially makes the INS judge, jury and executioner in any case where it charges ties to terrorism." Among the most dangerous aspects of this legislation are: Definitions of what constitutes terrorism that are so broad as to include any armed act engaged in for other than monetary gain. No distinction would be made between people who blow up airplanes full of innocent noncombatants, and people who take up arms to rid their country of a brutal dictator. Thus George Washington, who, after all, used violence to get rid of British colonial rule, might well qualify as a terrorist. Indeed, during the Reagan administration, the African National Congress in South Africa was classified as terrorist. Had the proposed law been in force at that time, non-citizens in the U.S. could have been punished for supporting the anti-apartheid struggle. Under this legislation, the executive branch can decide on its own, through a "certification" by the attorney general, that a non-citizen engaged in a crime of violence or support an organization, which has engaged in violence in the past. No finding or even assertion that there are actual terrorist associations or illegal actions is necessary for that person to be placed in mandatory detention and/or removed from the country without any prior judicial finding. (That is to say, the attorney general would only have to declare that so-and-so is "a risk" for the INS to be required to pick that person up and throw him or her out of the country. This action could only be appealed once the person has been thrown out. The decision for such a drastic action would be taken by INS officials, not a judge, and review would be limited to the Washington D.C. circuit court. These new mechanisms are not only aimed at people who provide help or support to armed actions. Even if you sent medical help to an overseas group that the Attorney General decides is or was at some time "terrorist" as defined above, you could be summarily picked up and thrown out of the United States. Such legislation is sure to have a "chilling effect" on people who otherwise might be tempted to support social justice struggles here and abroad. This legislation is based on the assumption that non-citizens in the United States are not protected by the Bill of Rights and/or that detention and deportation are not matters covered by the Bill of Rights. This is a matter that has been argued back and forth for decades, for, of course, the Bill of Rights makes no distinctions between citizens and non-citizens in guaranteeing freedom of speech, press, religion, assembly (and by implication, association) and due process. But successive administrations have alternately argued either that the Bill of Rights "did not really mean" itself to cover non-citizens, or that deportation is not a punishment but "merely an administrative procedure." This is like saying that cutting someone's head off is not a punishment but a "mere surgical procedure." Emile Schepers is a reader in Chicago who writes frequently on immigrant rights. *End* _________________________________________________ KOMINFORM P.O. Box 66 00841 Helsinki Phone +358-40-7177941 Fax +358-9-7591081 http://www.kominf.pp.fi General class struggle news: [EMAIL PROTECTED] subscribe mails to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Geopolitical news: [EMAIL PROTECTED] subscribe: [EMAIL PROTECTED] __________________________________________________
