Hellooooo internment camps!!

September 19, 2001 4:01 PM

Hellooooo internment camps!! "The Bush administration today announced a major expansion of its power to detain immigrants suspected of crimes, including new rules prompted by last week's terrorist attacks that would allow legal immigrants to be detained indefinitely during a national emergency."
posted by fooljay (47 comments total)

/me watches our freedoms erode.

spooky enough. i watched 'the siege' last night.

spoooooooooky.
posted by jcterminal at 4:03 PM on September 19, 2001

Does anyone have the pantone number handy which is the cutoff line for "those suspected of a crime" and the innocent?
posted by fooljay at 4:06 PM on September 19, 2001

Legal immigrants will no longer get the same liberties natural-born citizens get: when you're accussed of a crime, you'll get charged or released in a reasonable time frame. But no more for legal immigrants.
posted by mathowie at 4:07 PM on September 19, 2001

It is reminiscent though, isn't it aaron?
posted by fooljay at 4:16 PM on September 19, 2001

There's a civil liberties concern here, but I don't agree with the comparison to internment camps. It all depends on what "an additional reasonable period of time" is. My guess, from reading this article and others, is that 48 hours is reasonable, but longer than that would be tough for the courts to accept.
posted by rcade at 4:19 PM on September 19, 2001

I suppose my biggest problem is the broad language used: "in the event of emergency or other extraordinary circumstance,".

Who gets to define that? The government. What oversight is there? The government's... Sketchy sketchy sketchy.

The idea behind internment camps was to secure immigrants and even U.S. citizens who looked like the enemy. There isn't much of a difference, except for in the execution.
posted by fooljay at 4:21 PM on September 19, 2001

I'm with foojay on the Pantone number thing.... This certainly won't apply to British, Japanese, Australian, Filipino, Mexican, Canadian, etc. immigrants. So while the interment camps thing is a little far reaching, this is still very much not a good thing.
posted by eyeballkid at 4:31 PM on September 19, 2001

Welcome to Staten Island. ...For now.
posted by Down10 at 4:42 PM on September 19, 2001

Closeto where I live,on a very busy long stretch of road, there are countless stores, eating places etc and just about everyone of them hires and pays shit wages to illegal Mexicans...they do it cause they save lots of money.
But Bush want amnesty? What does he plan to do now about illegals, unregisteredd--those here but who would not be called to fight if needed?
posted by Postroad at 4:50 PM on September 19, 2001

ok, now i am scared. First we got the strange looks. Now they are gonna round us up.

good beacon of light this is. huh
posted by adnanbwp at 5:08 PM on September 19, 2001

Only time will tell what really happens, but it holds true once more that in a time of emergency, civil liberties of honest and innocent citizens are revoked until whenever the government sees the picture that "hey, they havent done anything!"
posted by a11an at 5:30 PM on September 19, 2001

[This certainly won't apply to British, Japanese, Australian, Filipino, Mexican, Canadian, etc. immigrants.]

If the Japanese, Filipino, Mexican, etc start blowing up buildings I bet it would! You'd be hard pressed to do this to British, Australian's because they "look" like white america. If they start blowing things up then everyone will get the same scrutiny and it's a police state.
posted by revbrian at 5:59 PM on September 19, 2001

I am far from being the world's biggest jingoist, but this kind of liberal bleating really steams me. Every time the government or the military proposes some kind of safeguard, the liberal left screeches about the abrogation of their rights, even though nothing has as yet been decided.

I think that most people in the government are *exquisitely* aware of the dangers inherent in restricting constitutional freedoms. Despite what many here apparently think, our elected officials are actually smart and caring people. (And if they are not, it's our own fault for having elected them in the first place.)

Liberals seem to think that fanatics and criminals are somehow bound by the same rules as the "good folks", and will graciously allow us to snoop on their conversations while they plot murder and mayhem. We can't insist that our government protect us on one hand, and then deprive them of the ability to do so on the other.
posted by mrmanley at 6:12 PM on September 19, 2001

If the Japanese, Filipino, Mexican, etc start blowing up buildings I bet it would!

Thanks for making my point for me. You like most people seem to assume that when a group of people blow up a building, their entire ethnic race is responsible. That's why this is such a bad idea.
posted by eyeballkid at 6:28 PM on September 19, 2001

whoops, I'm sorry, i just reread that, you agreed, ignore last my last comment revbrian.....
posted by eyeballkid at 6:30 PM on September 19, 2001

Every time the government or the military proposes some kind of safeguard, the liberal left screeches about the abrogation of their rights, even though nothing has as yet been decided

So mrmanley, you'd rather that people accept any new laws without comment, and wait until such laws are put in effect, then wait until the laws are tested in the courts. Is that when someone can say "hey, I don't think that new law is a good one?"

Liberals seem to think...

Yeah, don't you hate how all liberals do that? Oh, and all generalizations are false, including this one.

We can't insist that our government protect us on one hand, and then deprive them of the ability to do so on the other.

"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."
- Benjamin Franklin, Historical Review of Pennsylvania, 1759

I'm often surprised to hear the "small gov't" political party suggest ideas that infringe on personal liberty and freedom. I never understood that.
posted by mathowie at 6:32 PM on September 19, 2001

I guess the main beef that i have is that you never heard of any of such actions when it's not a "colored" individual.

Oklahoma city ... bomb goes off ...

now, did all european immigrants suddenly face such things?

But, then again .. there i go thinking again.
posted by a11an at 6:40 PM on September 19, 2001

eyeballkid, do we forbid our officers not to notice that it's foreign citizens that look a certain way responsible for the last acts of terrorism? I'm not suggesting we harass them, but a little extra scrutiny can't hurt. I don't walk into a redneck bar with waste-length hair and not expect a comment and a watchful eye on my behavior. Isn't this just prudent?
posted by revbrian at 6:47 PM on September 19, 2001

Thanks for comparing the US to a redneck bar.

The 48-hour deadline could be waived, however, "in the event of emergency or other extraordinary circumstance," allowing an immigrant to be held for "an additional reasonable period of time" without charges.

That's the sticky point.
posted by Loudmax at 6:54 PM on September 19, 2001

revbrian, the link in this thread is about the INS detaining people without charging them for a longer than previously established length of time. I don't recall it mentioning anything about "redneck bars", and I don't see how the logic in a "redneck bar" is comparable to a legal right to a speedy trial.

I also wouldn't define "extra scrutiny" as detaining someone for an indeterminate length out of paranoia. If we do turn this country in to a police state, we'll have lost this "war" that we are in the middle of, or about to start, or something like that.
posted by eyeballkid at 7:06 PM on September 19, 2001

Damn, for a second there I read it as "Internet" camps...

as for internment, aren't we still trying to figure out how to apologize to Asian-Americans for WWII?
posted by hotdoughnutsnow at 7:15 PM on September 19, 2001

I think that most people in the government are *exquisitely* aware of the dangers inherent in restricting constitutional freedoms.

Um, many of those freedoms don't apply to immigrants, legal or not: the powers of the INS are quite astonishingly broad already, without further augmentation: as the Elian case proved, they can and will act extra-judicially. But, of course, most US citizens never have to deal with the INS...
posted by holgate at 7:20 PM on September 19, 2001

eyeballkid, we were talking about profiling in the evolution of the thread. Sorry you missed me there.
posted by revbrian at 7:23 PM on September 19, 2001

do we forbid our officers not to notice that it's foreign citizens that look a certain way responsible for the last acts of terrorism??

Well, if all of these were done by people that looked a certain way would it be OK for the authorities to abridge our rights to protect us?

The FBI estimates that in 1997, 7,726,000 larceny-thefts, 2,461,000 burglaries, 1,354,000 motor vehicle thefts, 1,022,000 aggravated assaults, 498,000 robberies, 96,000 forcible rapes, and 18,200 murders were reported to law enforcement agencies

To answer my own rhetorical question, NO! That would not be OK. The events of last week were horrible. The knee-jerk choice to abandon the things that make America, well... America is nothing new and more troubling and over-reaching every single day.
posted by willnot at 7:32 PM on September 19, 2001

Every time the government or the military proposes some kind of safeguard, the liberal left screeches about the abrogation of their rights, even though nothing has as yet been decided.

People who think the way you do scare me more than any terrorist. And that's not hyperbole.

The FBI estimates that in 1997, 7,726,000 larceny-thefts, 2,461,000 burglaries, 1,354,000 motor vehicle thefts, 1,022,000 aggravated assaults, 498,000 robberies, 96,000 forcible rapes, and 18,200 murders were reported to law enforcement agencies

Hmm...a handful of terrorist plane crashes=time to give up our civil liberties and bow to whims of government. Yet 12 million thefts/burglaries/robberies and we still haven't caved to a police state...something doesn't figure.
posted by rushmc at 7:41 PM on September 19, 2001

I am far from being the world's biggest jingoist, but this kind of liberal bleating really steams me. Every time the government or the military proposes some kind of safeguard, the liberal left screeches about the abrogation of their rights, even though nothing has as yet been decided.

Gee, that's funny. I posted the thread and I'm pretty sure I've voted for the Republican candidate for President in every election except one.

It's not "liberal bleating" as you so eloquently put it, but concern for civil liberties and human rights.

I think that most people in the government are *exquisitely* aware of the dangers inherent in restricting constitutional freedoms.

Yes, so exquisitely aware that they pass the DMCA unanimously despite screaming from all parts of their constituencies except for the corporations which are lining their pockets. And that's Democrat and Republican alike, by the way.

It's people who say "aww, it's just this one thing" or "it's only temporary" that will be most surpised when most of the freedoms they've come to expect are permanently gone.

Despite what many here apparently think, our elected officials are actually smart and caring people.

I've written a great deal about this. While that has always been my hope, I am being let down on all fronts save one or two congressmen. That's not a great batting average.

Between law enforcement and corporate interests, the people are not being heard--mainly because people aren't educated on the issues enough to understand why they should care. When the consituency accedes by silence/ignorance, save one or two "left wing nutjobs" the political system breaks down and special interests take over. In this case, the special interest is law enforcement and the INS.

(And if they are not, it's our own fault for having elected them in the first place.)

Indeed it is. Indeed it is.

Liberals seem to think that fanatics and criminals are somehow bound by the same rules as the "good folks", and will graciously allow us to snoop on their conversations while they plot murder and mayhem.

Treating everyone like a criminal because there are some among us is called a "police state". Get used to the phrase. I think you'll be hearing it a great deal in the coming years.

That is, until they outlaw criticism of the government... ;-)
posted by fooljay at 7:43 PM on September 19, 2001

mathowie:

It comes down to how you define "reasonable" and "prudent". The US wants to be able to increase their scrutiny on foreign visitors. These people are not US citizens and thus are not covered by US law; how does increased scrutiny of them impact a US citizens' rights? The old "slippery slope" canard won't work.

People seem to be enamored of the "Timothy McVeigh wasn't a foreigner" argument, but recall that the FBI did increase scrutiny of various militias and right-wing organizations in the wake of Oklahoma City. They kept a lot of real whackos from hurting people by using surveillance and sting operations. Timothy McVeigh could be profiled not only by race (very few white supremacists are non-white, for example), but by religous and organizational affiliation and by circumstance. So can foreign visitors, and that's why increased scrutiny makes sense.

The simple fact is that the US, Cananda, and Mexico have extremely porous borders, and we need to take steps to tighten things down. If someone comes into our country that fits a certain profile, that doesn't necessarily make them a terrorist. On the other hand, it might. In light of 9.11, it is only reasonable and prudent to be careful and check.
posted by mrmanley at 7:51 PM on September 19, 2001

Looks like another In the Name of the Father. The law sounds exactly the same as the one used to detain Gerry Conlon etc so the British police could convince them to confess.
posted by FL0YD at 7:53 PM on September 19, 2001

...aren't we still trying to figure out how to apologize to Asian-Americans for WWII

to answer that , No.

The Supreme Court ruled in favor of the government, and that although these thousands of asian-americans were sent away for no reason other than being a different color ...

The Court noted that in times of "crisis", this was perfectly legal. So, tell me ... who check's the governments authority and power? Is this right?

I am sad.
posted by a11an at 7:55 PM on September 19, 2001

recall that the FBI did increase scrutiny of various militias and right-wing organizations in the wake of Oklahoma City.

manley:


They are not just looking at right-wing organizations now are they??!

No! they are selecting out a whole load of people, many whom (like the first immigrants to the US) want a good life. My parents were among them not long ago.

They do not select out just a particular sect/cult/group.. no. they say, hey ... these people are immigrants .. they look different, and you know ... they might be kooky too.

After oklahoma city they looked for groups of radicals or whatever ... is that what they are doing now? no. they have just bunched everyone that looks 'amiss' among caucasions.

Not a group of them.
just WHAM.
Every..One.
posted by a11an at 8:02 PM on September 19, 2001

These people are not US citizens and thus are not covered by US law; how does increased scrutiny of them impact a US citizens' rights? The old "slippery slope" canard won't work.

There's no slippery slope since it starts with an untruth. Foreigners in this country are subject to US law, and that's true whether they're tourists, legal residents, illegal aliens or martians. If they weren't, we wouldn't need to pass this law, we'd just detain them as we saw fit.

As for how that could impact our rights, well if other countries followed our lead or passed retaliatory legislation, this could impact our rights every time we travelled to a foreign country.
posted by boaz at 8:04 PM on September 19, 2001

a11an:

Okay -- what's your alternative? Clearly the current situation is far too dangerous; we need to have some mechanism to locate terrorists before they strike. If we take out surveillance and profiling, what's left? Wait until they murder six thousand more people and then take them into custody?

Harsh as it may seem, the duty of the US government and military services is to protect the interests of US citizens both here and abroad. Our interests are served by knowing in advance who means us harm and stopping them in advance.

But if we are so gung-ho about protecting rights, why not exercise our constitutional right to carry a firearm? A terrorist might think twice about trying to take over a plane if he knew everyone had a shootin' iron. If we're not going to bother checking for terrorists beforehand, at least we can improve our chances of stopping them in the act.
posted by mrmanley at 8:18 PM on September 19, 2001

It comes down to how you define "reasonable" and "prudent". The US wants to be able to increase their scrutiny on foreign visitors. These people are not US citizens and thus are not covered by US law; how does increased scrutiny of them impact a US citizens' rights? The old "slippery slope" canard won't work.

Did you read the article mrmanley?

We're talking about revoking the rights of full, legal immigrant citizens of this country. So the old "slippery slope" canard does in fact work here.

This legislation allows law enforcement to say "yeah, look, we know you've lived here for 20 years and you love the country, but your skin is dark enough that we're worried you're going to blow up the country so you don't have the same rights your white fellow citizens do. You understand right? It's wartime, we can't be too careful now, can we?"
posted by mathowie at 8:32 PM on September 19, 2001

But if we are so gung-ho about protecting rights, why not exercise our constitutional right to carry a firearm? A terrorist might think twice about trying to take over a plane if he knew everyone had a shootin' iron. If we're not going to bother checking for terrorists beforehand, at least we can improve our chances of stopping them in the act.

Why stop there? Why not walk around with your pistol out, wherever you go? Picking your kid up at daycare? Bring some heat! Going grocery shopping? Carry some serious stopping power! Taking a trip in a aluminum tin can going 500 miles an hour that can become deadly in the slightest change in pressure? You better have your gat locked, loaded, and strapped if you want to send a message to terroists!

A terrorist would certainly think twice if you flashed your piece everywhere you went. Hell, they'd avoid this whole country if all 250+ million of us did the same. Some could even choose to bring bazookas with them when they fly, to really send a message. Others might choose to display cannons on their lawns, to prove how protected we all are. Yep, that's a country I'd love to live in.

(if you're going to take things to extremes, so can I)
posted by mathowie at 8:39 PM on September 19, 2001

Harsh as it may seem, the duty of the US government and military services is to protect the interests of US citizens both here and abroad.

Rather, it is a duty of the U.S. government. It has others. I would agree that the government should protect my interests. It's just that my interests include a lot more than shielding me from real or perceived (not to mention manufactured) dangers from terrorists, domestic or foreign. More important are those interests codified in the Bill of Rights, for example.
posted by rushmc at 8:43 PM on September 19, 2001

We're talking about revoking the rights of full, legal immigrant citizens of this country. So the old "slippery slope" canard does in fact work here.

Actually Matt, that's not true either. Here's the relevant section of the article:

The new rules would apply to immigrants and foreign visitors who entered the country legally but who are suspected of committing crimes in the United States, or who have overstayed a visa or violated other terms of their entry into the country. They would not apply to citizens.

I stand by my earlier statement though; non-citizen does not equal non-entity. Any American who plans to travel abroad should take a long, hard look at how we treat foreigners here.
posted by boaz at 8:53 PM on September 19, 2001

Actually, the INS has been keeping a lot of people in indefinite detention for some time now. If you've run afoul of the law here, you're not a citizen, and there's no formal way to deport you (say, you're from a country that the U.S. doesn't have relations with)--you've just bought yourself a life sentence in INS detention. If you're from someplace like Somalia, you're papers aren't in order, and you're caught shoplifting, you effectively get a life sentence for shoplifting. Awfully lousy situation to be in. Some may remember that in 1987 there were prison riots in Atlanta and Louisiana by inmates in INS detention, mostly Cuban "Marielitos" with nowhere to go, and nothing to lose.
Note that this could also mean that ways could be found to hold suspected terrorists and fellow travellers indefinitely without a lot of trouble.
posted by gimonca at 9:08 PM on September 19, 2001

But if we are so gung-ho about protecting rights, why not exercise our constitutional right to carry a firearm?

You understand that your constitutional right to bear arms is in no way infringed by aircraft carriers refusing to let gun-toting lunatics on their privately owned planes. No shirt, no shoes, no sanity, no service.
posted by boaz at 9:09 PM on September 19, 2001

gimonca, don't forget about secret evidence cases where foreign nationals are held indefinitely without being given a chance to even see the evidence against them.
One Iraqi, who was a member of the Kurdish Democratic Party (KDP), was held for a year because a transcribing error said he was a member of KLM. So is KLM a terrorist group; no it's a Dutch airline.
posted by boaz at 9:20 PM on September 19, 2001

Am I the only one who read "...immigrants suspected of crimes..."

This is in no way like the Japanese internment camps. If an immigrant comes to the U.S. and is as clean as a whistle, they'll be left alone.

Also, the article talks about expanding the 24 hour hold period to 48.

Whil we should watch out for the potential of rights being erroded, really. Get the facts straight. Read about the wholesale roundup of ANYONE of Japanese descent during World War II and you'll get it.
posted by RoyalJack at 10:31 PM on September 19, 2001

"Oklahoma city ... bomb goes off ...
now, did all european immigrants suddenly face such things?"

Well not from the immigration standpoint because McVeigh was an American. The militant militia's and such kook groups in the USA were put under more intense scrutiny.

Much like the same way when Italian mobsters get busted they don't impose immigration laws, but they go after the other known mob members.

Also, keep in mind that ALL of the hijackers were not U.S. citizens. They were immigrants.

Basically, what I'm saying is that the concern might be slightly valid. But the comparison to Oklahoma City is just bullbunk. When it was determined militia groups were responsible, the government went after them.
posted by RoyalJack at 10:35 PM on September 19, 2001

"When it was determined militia groups were responsible, the government went after them.
Weren't the WTC terrorists a determined militia group?
What concerns me about all this is the holding of people suspected of crimes bit. And not necessarily crimes connected in anyway with Terrorism, any crime you can think up. The only uniting factor is "immigrants".
It seems like a blanket excuse to round up 'outsiders' from where I'm standing.
posted by Catch at 11:30 PM on September 19, 2001

suspected, RoyalJack, not convicted or somesuch...
posted by palnatoke at 4:23 AM on September 20, 2001

Read about the wholesale roundup of ANYONE of Japanese descent during World War II and you'll get it.


RoyalJack,

I'm afraid I have heard MOST of the stories, and heard them from those who lived through it.

and I am deeply troubled by the trends that I see forming.
posted by a11an at 4:40 AM on September 20, 2001

mrmanley and others seem to think that liberals are the only ones expressing concern about our civil liberties being eroded during this crisis.

That's not the case -- I'm hearing many of the same complaints from the right. The article quotes Bob Barr, and I heard a few minutes of Rush Limbaugh yesterday expressing some of the same views as liberals in this thread.
posted by rcade at 6:38 AM on September 20, 2001

If you, an American citizen, are suspected of a crime, you can be arrested and held for a specified period of time. At the close of that period of time, you must be charged with a crime, or released. Depending on jurisdiction, the amount of time that you can be held with no charges pending against you can be up to 72 hours. If, however, an emergency occurs which prevents the normal work of investigators, prosecutors or the courts -- a bombing or another act of violence, civil unrest, natural disasters, the outbreak of war, etc. -- additional time, as deemed reasonable by a judge, can be allowed before charges must be filed.

Under this proposed law, non-citizens who are suspected of a crime can be arrested and held for a specified period of time -- currently that is 24 hours, the law would increase that to 48. At the close of that period of time, they must be charged with the crime in question, a violation of the terms of their visa, or released. As with citizens, there is a provision which would allow for additional reasonable detention time should there be an emergency situation.

The questions -- will our government use this change in the law, which would still offer more protection to foreign nationals than citizens may enjoy under the exact same circumstances -- to begin rounding people up based on nothing more than race or ethnicity, and slapping them into detention? And will the government manipulate the meaning of "emergency situation" in order to keep those people in detention for unknown periods of time, just because they can?

I'm interested in finding specific evidence about the conduct of federal law enforcement -- as a whole -- and, more importantly, the conduct of federal judges who would be responsible for determining what "reasonable" means in these cases, before coming to any conclusion on either question.
posted by Dreama at 8:48 AM on September 20, 2001