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 ...
Yes the constitution is what defines and mandates our laws
They were not even detained.
They were not denied theit constitutional rights
They refused to answer questions and if they invoked their "right not to answer any questions on the grounds that it may tend to incriminate me" was not anywhere in the article. And if it was I stand corrected.
See post #53
We are making slow progress. Step 2 : Selective deportation of muzzies from US. Step 3 : Massive deportations of muzzies from US. Step 3 : Finishing off the enemy by all means available worldwide.
From Mirian-Webster's Dictionary of Law, Due Process is "a requirement that laws and regulations must be related to a legitimate government interest (as crime prevention) and may not contain provisions that result in the unfair or arbitrary treatment of an individual called also substantive due process." You might not like the regulations that govern the no fly list and any other terrorist lists the government keeps and you can challenge them in court as it appears these mutts are doing. If it turns out the process was arbitrary, then they'll get a nice fat settlement. But from what we're told about the nephew and their long stay in Pakistan, it is hard to see what is arbitrary about taking a long, hard look at them.
I think the 800lb. gorilla on this thread is the fact that, if the U.S. feels this person (or these people) is/are a danger, then it should initiate revocation/deportation proceedings.
Congress gave the president the equivalent of a declaration of war in the authorization to prosecute the war on terror following 911.
However I did at the time wish the president had requested a good old fashioned declaration of war just to prevent such legal hair splitting.
Fair enough. Administrative due process versus criminal due process . . . I get it.
I have no idea what you're talking about with "that old ice cream peddler Hyatt" whatever that means Anyway.....obviously we're involved in a war on terror. Anyone that doesn't see that is blind. I'm as much for profiling and searching Arab-appearing, middle-aged males entering the US as anyone. Does that mean that everyone gives up their rights as US citizens? Have you heard of habeas corpus? One of these guys was born in the US, the other is a naturalized citizen....personally I've travelled abroad any number of times and when I get BACK INTO THE US and am questioned by a Customs agent I'll answer whatever questions they have for me. In this case, if I was these two I'd come to some sort of agreement with the Feds before going thru hiring some ACLU lawyer. HOWEVER, the fact that some Fed decided to bar a US citizen from entering the country without being questioned while he's still in a foreign country, without any charges being filed (if the article's accurate) or any other accusations being made, really worries me. What's to keep some Fed from doing the same to me, you or anyone else? And why are we simply saying these people can't enter the US? If there's a suspicion of them doing something, let them enter then lock them up. Or are the Feds afraid that some ACLU lawyer will get them out in a few days because there really are no charges against them?
We are AMERICANS. That means something. There is a War going on and I expect the government to do anything it can to protect me, my family, my children, and any other US citizens. HOWEVER, it worries me like it should worry any other Americans when reading about a faceless Fed apparently arbitrarily barring a United States citizen from even getting back on the soil of his own country. If these two did something, keep them out. I don't want them flying here, I don't want them living here. But if they did something suspicious, tell them what they did and that they can't come back.
Your "opinion" does not trump the facts.
No Sir
That is "your" interpretation of the refusal
Not the courts.
And No I am not an attorney or a judge.
Good post.
That was my point. A lot of people on this thread have virtually revoked the citizenship of the individuals involved. They skipped a step.
Hey! Aren't you supposed to be "silent" on that? (snort!)
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.