2 Lodi residents refused entry back into U.S.

San Francisco Chronicle ^ | August 26, 2006 | Demian Bulwa

[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.

[Marine Inspector]

What to do with the punk that was born here? Charge him with treason and after conviction, try him and fry him. That should effectively revoke his citizenship and you will have deported him to hell at the same time.

Works for me!

[ndt]

"I didn't realize that you could be out of the country for that long and pop back in."

For a resident yes, for U.S citizen no. It is extremely difficult to strip a citizen of their citizenship. Even when a citizen tries to give up their citizenship it is often denied and has in the past been regranted when the person later changed their mind.

[Hong Kong Expat]

You know, there was this foregin student who was living in the hotel across the street from the WTC. He was evacuated with everybody else on 9/11. A security guard found a high-tech radio/walkie talkie in his room.

The FBI gave him a polygraph test, denied him access to a lawyer, under intense interrogation he admitted to owning the radio - changing his story several different times about how he came into possession of the radio.

The FBI charged him with lying, threw him in solitary confinement for a month. He was released when the security guard said he made the whole thing up.

[Petronski]

Nevertheless, Congress did NOT declare war.

The constitution does NOT specify the form of a declaration of war. Authorizing hostilities is not functionally distinguishable from a "declaration of war."

And we most certainly are at war.

[Jubal Harshaw]

The congressional joint resolution authorizing the use of force may or not have the power of a declaration of war. I think it does not. However, even on its own terms, it does not appear to authorize this action.

The relevant part of the declaration appears to be:

__________________________________
Authorization for Use of United States Armed Forces

(a) That the president is authorized to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on Sept. 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons ...
___________________________________

On its face, this makes blocking the return of Jaber Ismail not consistent with the resolution. The congressional resolution clearly refers to the use of US armed forces. The authority of other agencies to engage in the use of "all appropriate force" is not approved. The FBI is the agency in question in this article. The FBI is not part of the armed forces. The FBI therefore received no new authorization as a result of the joint resolution.

Further, the targets of the "appropriate force" are required to have been determined by the president to have "planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on Sept. 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons." Jaber Ismail was 13 in 2001. It is ludicrous on its face to suggest that a proper presidential finding determined that this (at the time) 13 year old boy "planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on Sept. 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons." That's even assuming that there was a presidential determination regarding Mr. Ismail, which is extremely unlikely.

In short, the executive branch engaged in actions that were clearly not authorized by the congressional resolution in question. That's not even taking into account the whole question of whether or not this resolution itself is even valid (which is the topic of another thread).

[Petronski]

In short, the executive branch engaged in actions that were clearly not authorized by the congressional resolution in question.

You haven't made the case.

Further, the targets of the "appropriate force" are required to have been determined by the president to have "planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on Sept. 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons."

There is no requirement that the individual be a member of "such organizations" prior to Sept. 11, 2001. If this idiot decided to join such an organization five days or five years after this authorization, that's his tough luck.

It is ludicrous on its face to suggest that a proper presidential finding determined that this (at the time) 13 year old boy "planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on Sept. 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons."

It is ludicrous on its face to suggest that such a finding, specific as to this individual, is necessary.

[Jubal Harshaw]

I'm sorry. I missed the part of the story that stated that Mr. Ismail was a "nation" or an "organization." Mr. Ismail is clearly a "person," and, if he is to be an individual target, with such targeting authorized by the congressional resolution, then a presidential determination must be made that he "planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on Sept. 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons." That's what the resolution says. Don't like that? I understand. I wish congress had declared war, but they did not. They did NOT authorize war, with all that implies. They wrote what they wrote, and wishing that they had declared war won't make it so. Pretending that they have declared war won't make it so. Only congress declaring war would make it so.

Further, again, the resolution clearly addresses ONLY the use of the armed forces. The term "armed forces" is in the title line of the relevant section of the congressional resolution. It could not be more clear. The FBI is not part of the armed forces, and therefore is not covered by this resolution.

[Petronski]

So you think the President's targeting of the organization only permits him to target the totality of the organization, and not its individual members or agents?

Right.

Don't like that? I understand. I wish congress had declared war, but they did not.

Not believable.

They did NOT authorize war, with all that implies.

Keep repeating it until you convince yourself.

They wrote what they wrote, and wishing that they had declared war won't make it so. Pretending that they have declared war won't make it so. Only congress declaring war would make it so.

Oh, I see you did. LOL

[Petronski]

On its face, this makes blocking the return of Jaber Ismail not consistent with the resolution.

Irrelevant.

Are you personally or professionally connected with this case? Connected in any way?

[airborne]

They were in Pakistan for 4 years.

I wonder what they were up to.

[Jubal Harshaw]

So you think the President's targeting of the organization only permits him to target the totality of the organization, and not its individual members or agents?


I missed the point in the article which stated that Mr. Ismail was proven to be part of any organization involved in 9-11. If he had been proven to be part of such an organization, then all this would be irrelevant, since the FBI would be criminally charging him, rather than trying to block him from the USA. Therefore, it's reasonable to assume that the FBI has no actual evidence that he's part of a terrorist organization.

It is clear from the tone of your posts that you believe that the president has the authority to do whatever he wants to do to anyone, including US born citizens, at any time, in any place, based on .... something. It's further clear that you believe that this authority has been granted by congress. I'm not even sure that Congress has that authority to grant, but, in any case, the source documents simply do not support your contention.

This is my last post to you on this topic. I regret that you have allowed your wishful thinking to blind you to the clear verbiage of the relevant congressional resolution. That is all.

To answer your other question, I am not connected to this case in any way. I don't know these people, or anything about them other than what I have read on Free Republic.

[pepperdog]

"1. Only congress can declare war
2. Congress has not declared war

THEREFORE:

3. do I really have to spell this out?"


Don't know about everyone else, but I recognize you for what you are, thanks for spelling it out.

[Petronski]

I missed the point in the article which stated that Mr. Ismail was proven to be part of any organization involved in 9-11.

Can such proof exist even if YOU don't have it?

[Petronski]

This is my last post to you on this topic. I regret that you have allowed your wishful thinking to blind you to the clear verbiage of the relevant congressional resolution.

It's your story, tell it however you want. LOL

It is clear from the tone of your posts that you believe that the president has the authority to do whatever he wants to do to anyone, including US born citizens, at any time, in any place, based on .... something.

It's clear from the content of your posts that you don't understanding the legal framework controlling in these matters.

That is all.

That phrase is far more effective as a final word IF YOU DON'T FOLLOW IT WITH MORE COMMENT.

ROTFLMAO

[Petronski]

Don't know about everyone else, but I recognize you for what you are...

I think I have a bead on it too. ;O)