trifid@agora.rain.com (Roadster Racewerks) (06/20/91)
The following excerpt appeared in the NY Times (May 24th):
It should concern anyone interested in civil rights issues particularly
since it directly relates to this country, considered to be a model
by the rest of the world in its democratic traditions.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
DO AS WE SAY!!! - By Anthony Lewis of the New York Times
---------------
Kuwait's trials of supposed collaborators this week were travesties by
Western Standards of law. The defendants were not confronted with any
evidence against them, and their lawyers had no chance to question witnesses.
An American diplomat said the convicted men were "railroaded".
Nothing like that could happen in the United States, could it? Oh yes
it could, if the Bush Administration has its way. It has introduced
legislation to create a system of secret trials, secret evidence,
secret decisions.
The Bush proposal is billed as a way to deport aliens who the Government
says have engaged in "terrorism". It is worded so broadly that it could
be used against political activists - an Irishman long resident here, say,
who opposes British rule in Northern Ireland. And the person accused
might never know exactly what he is accused of.
The legislation, 40 pages long, was sent up as part of the Administration's
massive crime bill. It has had little attention so far. But before long
members of Congress will surely begin to notice such a radical proposal -
a break with 200 years of Americal constitutional tradition and law.
The proposal would apply to all aliens, including permanent residents
who have lived here legally for years. Here is how it would work:
The Justice Department would file an application with a special new
court to hold a secret deportation hearing. The application itself
would be secret. The alien would receive no notice of the proceeding. And
the Justice Department could immediately take him into detention.
The court would decide whether there was probable cause to hold a "special
removal hearing". It would make that decision on the Government's papers,
with nothing heard from the defendant or his lawyer. If a judge denied
the application, the Government could appeal - secretly.
At a "special removal hearing" the evidence could be witheld in whole
or part from the defendant alian. He may be given a generalized "summary"
of the grounds for seeking his deportation, but even that may be witheld
at the Justice Department's request.
When the judge decides the case, any part of his opinion relating to the
undisclosed evidence would be secret - kept from the defendant. The alien
would have the right to appeal, but only to a Federal court that deals
mainly with patent and trademark cases, and again without access to the
evidence.
The bill uses a loose definition of "terrorist organizations," including
any that have ever committed violence in the past or that, even if
non-violent now, might in the future. It would thus allow the Government
summarily to deport people who have done no more, for example, than raise
money for the African National Congress of South Africa.
After the secret trial, moreover, the Government would be free to send the
alien anywhere- without the usual legal restriction against sending him to
a country where his life maybe in danger. Thus a Chinese student opposed
to the Beijing regime could be sent back to China, for all he knows on
evidence supplied by the Chinese Government.
In fact, the "terrorist" label for this bill seems to be a cover for
something else. For years the Justice Department has been trying to get
the power to deport aliens without producing evidence.
The department has been singularly unsuccessful in persuading the courts
to allow deportation without due process. A conservative judge of the
US Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia, Douglas Ginsburg,
said in rejecting it that the idea smacked of Kafka. "Even someone innocent
of all wrongdoing," he said, could hardly prove that without knowing what
the charge was.
The most surprising thing about this legislation, in a way, is its
sponsorship by Attorney General Dick Thornburgh. On a visit to Harvard's
Kennedy School last week, Mr. Thornburgh said America's most valuable
export to the world should be "the rule of law". He said the United States
had an important role in helping other countries develop democratic
institutions.
"Shame on us," Mr. Thornburgh said, "if we fail to take full advantage
of this magnificent opportunity - truly to cherish our principles at home
and boldly to export them abroad." Did he mean export what we say, not
what we do ?
-------------------------end of article----------------------
That this can even be suggested as a bill (regardless of whether it
actually passes), is shocking. It sets a dangerous precedent and bears
an uncanny resemblance to Hitler's Nazi Germany.
"In Germany they first came for the Communists and I didn't speak up
because I wasn't a Communist. Then they came for the Jews, and I
didn't speak up because I wasn't a Jew. Then they came for the trade
unionists and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a trade unionist.
Then they came for the Catholics, and I didn't speak up because I was
a Protestant. Then they came for me--and by that time no one was left
to speak up."
--Pastor Martin Niemoller.
I posted this here because it seems to me to be no stretch at all for the
government to use this to deport people who are gay, HIV positive, or non-
citizen members of ACT-UP, once it is in place. If they don't have to tell
you what you're being accused of, how would you know what the motive was?
Naturally, I hope it doesn't pass...but how disgusting! Bush's "New World Order"
looks more and more like the *last* "New World Order"...uncle Adolph's...
I'm ashamed to be a Republican...
Suze Hammond
trifid@agora.rain.comFNOUR%UMAB.BITNET@mvs.oac.ucla.edu (Farzaneh Nour) (06/20/91)
Is this bill suggesting that the Bill of Rights does not apply to immigrants?! How can they accuse someone of a crime without announcing the crime itself? How can one appeal if he does not know what he is guilty of? That's unconstitutional AND inhumane. Shame on them (I shouldn't feel free to say that; I might get deported!).