Posted on 08/26/2006 8:07:24 PM PDT by Mount Athos
The federal government has barred two relatives of a Lodi man convicted of supporting terrorists from returning to the country after a lengthy stay in Pakistan, placing the U.S. citizens in an extraordinary legal limbo.
Muhammad Ismail, a 45-year-old naturalized citizen born in Pakistan, and his 18-year-old son, Jaber Ismail, who was born in the United States, have not been charged with a crime. However, they are the uncle and cousin of Hamid Hayat, a 23-year-old Lodi cherry packer who was convicted in April of supporting terrorists by attending a Pakistani training camp.
Federal authorities said Friday that the men, both Lodi residents, would not be allowed back into the country unless they agreed to FBI interrogations in Pakistan. An attorney representing the family said agents have asked whether the younger Ismail trained in terrorist camps in Pakistan.
The men and three relatives had been in Pakistan for more than four years and tried to return to the United States on April 21 as a federal jury in Sacramento deliberated Hayat's fate. But they were pulled aside during a layover in Hong Kong and told there was a problem with their passports, said Julia Harumi Mass, their attorney.
The father and son were forced to pay for a flight back to Islamabad because they were on the government's "no-fly" list, Mass said. Muhammad Ismail's wife, teenage daughter and younger son, who were not on the list, continued on to the United States.
Neither Muhammad nor Jaber Ismail holds dual Pakistani citizenship, Mass said.
"We haven't heard about this happening -- U.S. citizens being refused the right to return from abroad without any charges or any basis," said Mass, a lawyer for the American Civil Liberties Union.
(Excerpt) Read more at sfgate.com ...
My thoughts exactly.
Yes you can.
Re: They don't have to answer a few questions.
Yes they do...and it's called the Fourth Amendment.
I was just thinking they could probably fly to Canada, then drive across.
1. we are not at war "
dissent in part:
1.You are delusional
____________
Also, on your previous point of police questioning of subjects having "reasonable suspicion of criminal activity" you also have no background on the Fourth Amendment.
You have the right to disagree, but it's not the prevalent decision.
I do have a problem with feds asking questions and then abusing a person's civil rights (freedom of travel). Detain him, CHARGE him or let him go ... this is a load of B$ that the feds are pushing in the name of state security.
Yes they do...and it's called the Fourth Amendment.
You're right ... to get back into the country the questions you have to answer are something like these
Are you carrying any live plants or animals?
Have you had contact with any animals?
Are you carrying contraband?
Anything else cannot be used to var a US citizen from re-entry to the USA.
Assisting law enforcement officers is NOT a condition to enter this country for a CITIZEN. There is a big damned difference between detaining someone and denying a US citizen entry because he wont answer questions.
I have no pity or sympathy for muslims in this country that are planning stuff and if he is (probably) I hope they fry him. What I have a serious problem with is setting a VERY dangerous precedent to allow an executive branch cop the ability to deny a citizen re-entry to this country without a warrant, a declaration of war or anything else for that matter.
Next time it could be democrats going after christian missionaires.
Then charge them ... my whole point is that NO ONE has the power or right to deny a citizen entry back into the USA for not speaking.
I doubt our founders ever intended the rights delineated in the Constitution, required us to be stupid or to commit suicide by applying them indiscriminately...
I doubt our founders would have tolerated the boot licking fascism that is creeping into our daily lives either. Every time citizens rights have been put on the back burner has been during time of WAR
No declaration of war is on file. I am not about to entrust this level of power to the feds based on a Presidential Executive Order, War Powers act or anything else BUT a declaration of war.
My sentiments exactly.
Need more?
One is a 'naturalized' citizen. Having taken the oath required, he is bound by it:
Naturalization Oath of Allegiance to the United States of America
"I hereby declare, on oath, that I absolutely and entirely renounce and abjure all allegiance and fidelity to any foreign prince, potentate, state or sovereignty, of whom or which I have heretofore been a subject or citizen; that I will support and defend the Constitution and laws of the United States of America against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I will bear arms on behalf of the United States when required by the law; that I will perform noncombatant service in the armed forces of the United States when required by the law; that I will perform work of national importance under civilian direction when required by the law; and that I take this obligation freely without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; so help me God."
If you ask the government to give you something tangible (like citizenship), they permanently maintain the right to take it back.
-----
The other, supposedly a 'US citizen' by birth, really isn't unless he was born in Washington, D.C. or in a port, fort or arsenal.
"Every Person born within the limits of the United States, and subject to their jurisdiction, is by virtue of natural law and national law a citizen of the United States. This will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers accredited to the Government of the United States, but will include every other class of persons."
Senator Jacob Howard, co-author of the citizenship clause of the 14th Amendment, 1866.
----
I don't always like what the government does either, but that doesn't mean they don't have the legal right to do it anyway.
"Detain him, CHARGE him or let him go"
Actually there's not a whole lot the feds can do overseas. Keeping a person from boarding is probably it. If the person made it here and acted strange, then more options may exist.
So the question really is whether the person has a RIGHT to fly if he acts suspicious, regardless of citizenship. Maybe we differ here, but my answer is no. If one does not play by the rules, even if the rules change over time (as probably the case over the 4 years here), then, in my opinion, one has to find another way here - such as flying to Canada and then (legally) crossing at the border (for example). If US Customs simply refuses to let him into the country at that point, it gets a bit more tricky and you may have a point - but I don't think we do that.
1. WE (i.e. the USA) are not at war. Only congress can declare war. You do not have the power to declare war. I do not have the power to declare war. The President does not have the power to declare war. This is basic Constitutional Law. Congress has not declared war, so, as a matter of law, we are not at war.
2. The fourth amendment? Huh? No one is talking about searches. This case involves refusing to answer questions about a possible criminal matter. It involves the FIFTH, not the FOURTH amendment. Even congress cannot compell testimony in violation of the fifth amendment. Much less can an agent of the executive branch.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.