The death of Habeas Corpus
moultano
Creator of ns_shiva. Join Date: 2002-12-14 Member: 10806Members, NS1 Playtester, Contributor, Constellation, NS2 Playtester, Squad Five Blue, Reinforced - Shadow, WC 2013 - Gold, NS2 Community Developer, Pistachionauts
Creator of ns_shiva. Join Date: 2002-12-14 Member: 10806Members, NS1 Playtester, Contributor, Constellation, NS2 Playtester, Squad Five Blue, Reinforced - Shadow, WC 2013 - Gold, NS2 Community Developer, Pistachionauts
in Discussions
Most of you are probably aware of the recent <a href="http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/5390848.stm" target="_blank">suspension of Habeas Corpus</a>. Senator Chris Dodd said it at least as well as I could: <!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->This longstanding tradition of our country about to be abandoned here is one of the great, great mistakes that I think history will record.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->Reading about this for me is like gaping at a car wreck that you just can't turn away from. Here's how the vote went in the <a href="http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2006/roll491.xml" target="_blank">House</a> and the <a href="http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=109&session=2&vote=00259#position" target="_blank">Senate</a>. In the past six years I've gotten used to the feeling of being embarrassed by my government, but I can no longer console myself that the executive is merely incompetent. I wonder how long it will take the phrase, "It's a free country," to fall out of circulation.
It feels inadequate to mention any single notable and applicable quotation; There are so many, from Benjamin Franklin, George Orwell, Winston Churchill. What's amazing to me is that with the entire range of quotable and historic philosophers arrayed against this type of legislation, too few senators had the courage to stand against it to mount even a filibuster.
I joined the <a href="http://www.aclu.org/" target="_blank">ACLU</a> today. Freedom apparantly <i>can't</i> protect itself.
Here's another article on it: <a href="http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/la-oe-ackerman28sep28,0,619852.story?coll=la-opinion-rightrail" target="_blank">http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/la-oe-...inion-rightrail</a>
It feels inadequate to mention any single notable and applicable quotation; There are so many, from Benjamin Franklin, George Orwell, Winston Churchill. What's amazing to me is that with the entire range of quotable and historic philosophers arrayed against this type of legislation, too few senators had the courage to stand against it to mount even a filibuster.
I joined the <a href="http://www.aclu.org/" target="_blank">ACLU</a> today. Freedom apparantly <i>can't</i> protect itself.
Here's another article on it: <a href="http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/la-oe-ackerman28sep28,0,619852.story?coll=la-opinion-rightrail" target="_blank">http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/la-oe-...inion-rightrail</a>
This discussion has been closed.
Comments
But the government somehow doesn't notice this fact.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->"As our troops risk their lives to fight terrorism, this bill will ensure they are prepared to defeat today's enemies and address tomorrow's threats," President Bush said in a statement on Thursday. <!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Bla, bla ,bla...
Didn't the US intelligence just state that war in iraq actually raised the threat of terrorism?
It is time for a new tactic.
<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alien_and_Sedition_Acts" target="_blank">The Alien and Sedition Acts</a>
<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sedition_Act_of_1918" target="_blank">Sedition Act of 1918</a>
<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antiterrorism_and_Effective_Death_Penalty_Act_of_1996" target="_blank">AEDPA</a>
<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USA_PATRIOT_Act" target="_blank">Patriot Act</a>
All of these are similiar both in the context of repression of basic rights and public outrage at their passing. To my knowledge, neither AEDPA (passed under Clinton, by the way) nor the Patriot Act has altered my life in anyway. I've not ceased doing anything I used to do, and I've not started doing something I didn't do unless I made a choice to do so.
So, really, has the Patriot Act really changed your life? It'll get repealed eventually, don't worry. As will this act.
These people are prisoners because we believe their terrorists already. A trial probably would not fail, but it would take a long time. You have to try every prisoner to justify holding them for interrogation, and all the while the information they carry grows older and older. By the time you get it, it's useless. Military intelligence is the single most vital part of any campaign, as much as some would deem the term an oxymoron.
Asking a military body to forgo use of a pool of such information is like asking them to lope off their own arms.
(offtopic)
<!--QuoteBegin-Razagal+--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Razagal)</div><div class='quotemain'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Bla, bla ,bla...
Didn't the US intelligence just state that war in iraq actually raised the threat of terrorism?
It is time for a new tactic.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Of course entering Iraq under military means raised the threat of terrorism. We don't need any fangled reports to say that to us.
If China invaded France, would that make the United States more apt to attack China? Of course it would, even though France is not the closest of our ties at the moment.
The report also says that leaving Iraq would only make it worse. Obviously the Bush adminstration believe the potential benefits of the invasion outweighed the potential consequences, else we would not be there. Have some faith in the good old boys.
Quick googling came up with
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->The privilege of the writ of habeas corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in cases of rebellion or invasion the public safety may require it.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Now I know that the French government is far from a reference, but I don't see it butchering its legislation so blatantly <img src="style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/confused-fix.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid="???" border="0" alt="confused-fix.gif" />
At least wars back in the day had a half-decent reason along the lines of "He looked at me funny", "Their god is the wrong god" or "Your ancestors stole one of my ancestor's goats" rather than "A bloke in the pub told me that they might have some bombs. Virus bombs. Or something."
And the world plays along because they're too spineless to stand up to the might of America. Woohoo.
--Scythe--
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I think the story that's coming out little by little on that is more compelling. It seems that Bush and many others in the neoconservative movement believe that democratizing the middle east is the only long term solution to Islamic terrorism. I agree with them on that point, but I think we can all agree that their methodology for achieving this wasn't exactly well planned.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->These people are prisoners because we believe their terrorists already. A trial probably would not fail, but it would take a long time. You have to try every prisoner to justify holding them for interrogation, and all the while the information they carry grows older and older. By the time you get it, it's useless. Military intelligence is the single most vital part of any campaign, as much as some would deem the term an oxymoron.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
If all we were talking about were people taken straight off of the battlefield I would agree. We aren't. The bill that was passed gives the executive branch the power to declare anyone to be an unlawful combatant, with no court oversight. The accused cannot challenge their detention in the courts, and if they are not a citizen of the US they cannot invoke even the geneva conventions.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec--> `(1) UNLAWFUL ENEMY COMBATANT- (A) The term `unlawful enemy combatant' means--
. . .
`(ii) a person who, before, on, or after the date of the enactment of the Military Commissions Act of 2006, has been determined to be an unlawful enemy combatant by a Combatant Status Review Tribunal or another competent tribunal established under the authority of the President or the Secretary of Defense.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
May I remind you that we have <a href="http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/americas/09/18/canada.deport.ap/index.html" target="_blank">made mistakes before</a> and an innocent man was shipped of to Syria and tortured as a result.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->So, really, has the Patriot Act really changed your life? It'll get repealed eventually, don't worry. As will this act.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Laws don't get appealed on their own. It is essential to the very identity of this country that we make sure our elected officials know how unacceptable this is, and remove from office those that won't listen.
...
If all we were talking about were people taken straight off of the battlefield I would agree. We aren't. The bill that was passed gives the executive branch the power to declare anyone to be an unlawful combatant, with no court oversight. The accused cannot challenge their detention in the courts, and if they are not a citizen of the US they cannot invoke even the geneva conventions.
May I remind you that we have <a href="http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/americas/09/18/canada.deport.ap/index.html" target="_blank">made mistakes before</a> and an innocent man was shipped of to Syria and tortured as a result.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
No system is perfect. There will be mistakes, always. That's part of being human. If I'm the one who gets taken by accident, I guess I have a right to be ######, but not to change the system unless I'm just one of <i>many</i> mistakes.
But you're right: That peice that says they can arrest anyone and forgo court <b>is</b> scary. And if people around us start to disappear whom we don't believe could possibily have been terrorists, I expect you to be beside me while I charge the mound and attempt to tear down a tyrannical government, as is our constitutional duty as Americans, <img src="style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/tounge.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid=":p" border="0" alt="tounge.gif" />. If the government's treating you really bad, it's time to kill it.
But I don't think it'll come to that <img src="style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/biggrin-fix.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid=":D" border="0" alt="biggrin-fix.gif" />.
<!--quoteo(post=1568636:date=Oct 1 2006, 04:53 AM:name=moultano)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(moultano @ Oct 1 2006, 04:53 AM) [snapback]1568636[/snapback]</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->
Laws don't get appealed on their own. It is essential to the very identity of this country that we make sure our elected officials know how unacceptable this is, and remove from office those that won't listen.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
You're right, they don't. And a bit of public outrage on the subject is appropriate. But it should be tempered with the understanding that Bush is probably not trying to set up a regime, that he'll be out of office soon, and that life will go on.
Asking a military body to forgo use of a pool of such information is like asking them to lope off their own arms.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
A major aspect of a constitutional state is, that suspects don't get punished until their guilt is proven.
So saying, hey we already think they are terrorists so lets punish them a bit until we know for sure, is ABSOLUTELY WRONG!
Sentencing someone based on hearsay or information that were gained by torture is unjustly.
People who accuse others of being a member of the taliban or whatever get money (from the US) - and in a country like afghanistan one could always use a bit money, so thats pretty tempting.
I've watched several reportages on tv which showed people that seemed to be innocent, like a taxi driver from afghanistan or a german man who got caught on a afghanistan trip. Nevertheless they were imprisoned at guantanamo for a few years.
Not speaking of how they are being transported to the USA, lying on the floor of an airplane, arms and legs tied up and blindfold. Thats a shame for the US - EVEN if all these people were terrorists.
And a bit of public outrage on the subject is appropriate. But it should be tempered with the understanding that Bush is probably not trying to set up a regime, that he'll be out of office soon, and that life will go on.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
While I'm sure that's probably what most people will do, I don't think that's the right course of action. If a single person is punished unjustly, the damage isn't limited to the humiliation and violence done to that one individual. It undermines our entire system of law. It fosters cynicism and distrust of our legal system. "It is better 100 guilty Persons should escape than that one innocent Person should suffer." When that one may be subjected to torture, bump that up to a million.
Isn't the constitution generally interpreted to offer guaranteed protections only to US citizens, and not to foreigners who do things like shoot at our soldiers in other countries?
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
The US government doesn't consider non-citizens to have the same rights as citizens. They have been doing a craptastic job with international humanitarianism for the past 6 years.
Guantanamo. warrentless wiretapping, phone and internet records, a world wide system of 'secret' prisons, a policy of torture, and now the ability to apply many of these new powers (powers previously written off as being applied only to terrorists) to americans and even define the charges against them after the event. There is no doubt that America is being moved away from its traditional constitutional values (its hardly a secret that Bush derides the constitution).
[In this light, recent legislation in the area of Net Neutrality may bares closer inspection?]
But then again, perhaps im being too paranoid about all these apparently worrying legal loopholes, which even if not abused now, by a demonstably power hungry and unsympathetic adminstration, will stand for future administrations to do with as they will.
and now the ability to apply many of these new powers (powers previously written off as being applied only to terrorists) to americans and even define the charges against them after the event.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Is <i>anyone</i> paying attention to the fact these new laws only apply to <i>foreigners</i>? This bill won't take away a single right from American citizens! Not ONE!
How can you call that a descent into fascism?
`(1) UNLAWFUL ENEMY COMBATANT- (A) The term `unlawful enemy combatant' means--
. . .
`(ii) a person who, before, on, or after the date of the enactment of the Military Commissions Act of 2006, has been determined to be an unlawful enemy combatant by a Combatant Status Review Tribunal or another competent tribunal established under the authority of the President or the Secretary of Defense.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Ah, but you selectively ignored this part:
`(3) ALIEN- The term `alien' means a person who is not a citizen of the United States.
And this part:
`Sec. 948c. Persons subject to military commissions
`Any <b>alien</b> unlawful enemy combatant is subject to trial by military commission under this chapter.
(Just bringing this up to support my post above, which needed some evidence.)
[Senate Bill S.3930.ES]
I hate saying this, but if this law requires minimal credibility, it needs to apply to any person, American or not. Because as such, it gives power to a "rogue" government on a foreign individual without counsel from the rest of the world (including but not restricted to the person's home country). So while you might be safe in the comfort of your home, I could just be snatched off the airport for some reason such as mixing deodorant (an inflamable object) a Dell laptop (an explosive object) and an utility knife, which I actually carry around on all trips I take. Now I really want to believe my example to be overly grotesque, but if having three potentially dangerous items in my luggage is reason enough for me to be subject to summary imprisonment, and if I can't even contest such claims, then something is very wrong. Now you're probably thinking that this could never happen, and thank god it probably won't. I have never been to court, so I can't really think up of a better example, but surely it is far from impossible for someone to be imprisoned wrongly.
In any case, a government should not have the ability to imprison someone without letting the imprisoned person the ability to speak for his defense. (A military commision doesn't fit this category)
Now I don't see why an American should deserve special treatment. ...I hate saying this, but if this law requires minimal credibility, it needs to apply to any person, American or not.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
To the best of my knowledge, no nation in the history of the world has <i>ever</i> afforded the same rights and privileges to foreigners as it did to citizens. However, if I'm forgetting one, I would be eager to hear when and where this momentous event occurred.
In the meanwhile, its perfectly normal for foreigners to face a more intimidating legal environment than citizens. So why should an American deserve special treatment? Because he's a citizen residing in his home country, and the foreigner is not. Because the government is called to protect its citizens, not just anyone who happens to be within its borders. And because our constitution guarantees rights to our citizens, not to all humanity.
To the best of my knowledge, no nation in the history of the world has <i>ever</i> afforded the same rights and privileges to foreigners as it did to citizens. However, if I'm forgetting one, I would be eager to hear when and where this momentous event occurred.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
When it comes to equality before the law (and were talking about laws here) then Germany has afforded this.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->
German Basic Law, Article 3
(1) <b>All humans are equal before the law.</b>
(2) Men and women are equal. The state supports the effective
realization of equality of women and men and works towards abolishing
present disadvantages.
(3) <b>No one may be disadvantaged or favored because of his</b> sex, parentage,
race, language, <b>homeland and origin</b>, his faith, or his religious
or political opinions. No one may be disadvantaged because
of his handicap.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Is <i>anyone</i> paying attention to the fact these new laws only apply to <i>foreigners</i>? This bill won't take away a single right from American citizens! Not ONE!
How can you call that a descent into fascism?
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
my bad, you are correct, its not your turn quite yet.
as a foreigner myself, im still rather concerned about this, it was just today I was hearing about this <a href="http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/6037261.stm" target="_blank">close call</a>. Raissi narrowly avoided an extradition to the US, where he would have no doubt remained indefinatly (lack of evidence doesnt matter when theres a lack of jurisprudence).
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->To the best of my knowledge, no nation in the history of the world has ever afforded the same rights and privileges to foreigners as it did to citizens. However, if I'm forgetting one, I would be eager to hear when and where this momentous event occurred.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<b>from the 5th Amendment</b>
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
to my knowledge the constitution draws no distinction, granting protection to 'all persons'
[then again, im admittedly no expert].
Ok, back to the US.
<!--QuoteBegin-Melatonin+--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Melatonin)</div><div class='quotemain'><!--QuoteEBegin-->to my knowledge the constitution draws no distinction, granting protection to 'all persons'
[then again, im admittedly no expert].<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I am also no expert, so I will admit ahead of time that I could be wrong here, but here's the results of my brief research through the constitution. It doesn't bring up the question of Citizens vs Non-Citizens directly, but it mentions it occasionally allowing you to infer an answer.
Article IV.
Section 2
The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States.
Thus indicating that "Citizens in the several States" do gain certain privileges that would not automatically be afforded to a mere resident who was not a citizen. Otherwise the clause would be completely redundant.
Amendment XIV
1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the
jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State
wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge
the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any
State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of
law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the
laws.
This amendment starts by describing certain privileges afforded citizens, then drops the word citizen and refers to other privileges afforded to all persons equally, which again indicates there are certain privileges reserved only for citizens, although it does not directly define what those are. Note that some of the limitations here seem like they would restrict the new law we are discussing, except this amendment applies specifically to individual states, not the United States as a whole.
------------------------------------
Since we've both admitted to not being experts, its probably useful to hear what some real experts have to say. Who better than the Supreme Court? The trouble is, they write 30-page answers to 2-line questions, and we non-experts would have a terrible time trying to understand everything in one of those. So I shall instead direct you to <a href="http://www.heritage.org/Research/NationalSecurity/wm1143.cfm" target="_blank">this news analysis</a> of the Supreme Court ruling on the Guantanamo non-citizen detainees.
According to the analyst, the Supreme Court pretty solidly ruled that Non-citizens are not granted all the same rights and privileges as Citizens in our courts. At the same time, they did confirm that non-citizens should still be able to excercise the Writ of Habeas Corpus. However, the Supreme Court makes its rulings based off of current Laws as well as the Constitution, and I don't possess enough knowledge to know whether this ruling was based more from the Constitutional Guarantee of Habeas Corpus, or the current Congressional Laws set up to regulate it. So there's a good chance that this new law will show up before the Supreme Court before too long, but its an open question which way they will rule on it.
Is <i>anyone</i> paying attention to the fact these new laws only apply to <i>foreigners</i>?
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
yes, because as a green card carrying permanent resident of the state of kansas, this applies to me.
While I will admit that this document is far too heavy going for me to fully understand (perhaps I should resume reading more frequently? <img src="style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/confused-fix.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid="???" border="0" alt="confused-fix.gif" /> ) The parts that I could glean seemed to suggest that not only should Hamden (and presumably all inmates) be granted access to Habeas Corpus, but that they should be afforded other conventional rights as defined in the UCMJ (Uniform Code of Military Justice) and the Geneva Conventions.
<b>page 7</b>
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->(d) Even assuming that Hamden is a dangerous individual who would cause great harm or death to innocent civilians given the opportunity,
the Executive neverthless must comply with the prevailing rule of law in undertaking to try him and subject him to criminal punishment.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
there may arise the question as to whether International Law is given the same value as domestic law, but Article 6 of the Constitution states that:
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->"This Constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; <i>and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States</i>, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the Constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding."<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
If anyone else can find any useful information from the link above, I would be greatful to hear.
Is <i>anyone</i> paying attention to the fact these new laws only apply to <i>foreigners</i>? This bill won't take away a single right from American citizens! Not ONE!
How can you call that a descent into fascism?
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Oh I see, all is well then. As long as it is only FOREIGNERS, and not REAL people. Man, we foreigners are so stupid.
First they came for the Jews
and I did not speak out
because I was not a Jew.
Then they came for the Communists
and I did not speak out
because I was not a Communist.
Then they came for the trade unionists
and I did not speak out
because I was not a trade unionist.
Then they came for me
and there was no one left
to speak out for me.
Pastor Martin Niemöller
First They Came for the Jews
First they came for the Jews
and I did not speak out
because I was not a Jew.
Then they came for the Communists
and I did not speak out
because I was not a Communist.
Then they came for the trade unionists
and I did not speak out
because I was not a trade unionist.
Then they came for me
and there was no one left
to speak out for me.
Pastor Martin Niemller
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Question: WHY did they come for the Jews?
Answer: Because they were Jews.
Question: WHY did they come for the Communists?
Answer: Because they were Communists.
Question: WHY did they come for the Trade Unionists?
Answer: Because they were Trade Unionists.
Question: WHY are they coming for the non-citizens?
Answer: Well, they aren't. Actually, most of the non-citizens are completely unaffected by this. But when they go after a Terrorist, if he happens to BE a non-citizen, then they have some extra tools to work with. But they're going after him because he's a Terrorist, not because he's a non-citizen.
Nice parallels there, really. If you like being blind.
Nice catch on Germany. So its not unheard of, but I still maintain its pretty rare.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
If Germany doesn't tickle your fancy, I happen to have an example a little closer to your home.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec--> <b>Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms</b>
Section 15. (1) <b>Every individual is equal before and under the law and has the right to the equal protection and equal benefit of the law without discrimination</b> and, in particular, without discrimination based on race, <b>national or ethnic origin</b>, colour, religion, sex, age or mental or physical disability.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
As an opinion, I don't think its as rare as you seem to believe. I believe you just haven't done the research to back your ideas. Please correct me if I'm wrong.
Also, I believe you're starting to step outside the bounds of Ethnocentrism and into the realm of racism with your previous post.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec--> But when they go after a Terrorist, if he happens to BE a non-citizen, then they have some extra tools to work with.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Well, thats all good and fine, aside from the fact that they aren't going after Terrorists. They are going after people who they think might be terrorists. People who could just be a guy coming back from vacation.
What happens when they go after a Non-Citizen who happens to BE innocent?
I believe the saying was supposed to be "Innocent until proven guilty" not "Assume they are gulity and stop there." I may be wrong. Please feel free to correct me.