Tuesday, August 29, 2006

Big Brother

This article scares me.

I mean, really, really scares me.

The government has prohibited a natural-born U.S. citizen from re-entering the country, because his relative has done something wrong.

Please don't tell me there's any disagreement that this is wrong, wrong, wrong.

I never realized it was a crime to be an adult male who's related to a criminal. That's a new one on me.


At August 29, 2006 at 3:37 PM, Anonymous Leif said...

You mean an adult MAN who's related to a criminal, right?

At August 29, 2006 at 3:42 PM, Blogger The Law Fairy said...


"human" was implied, I think... but, sure, we'll go with "man"

At August 29, 2006 at 10:19 PM, Blogger Lazerlou said...

I think the argument goes something like this:

"Due Process? Due Process? We don't need no stinking due process. We're the FBI/Executive Branch/Commander in Chief/King, and this is a time of war and a matter of national secutity. COMMANDER IN CHIEF. CONGRESSIONAL GRANT OF WAR POWERS TO WAGE WAR ON TERORISM. WHY DO YOU HATE AMERICA?"

Not a compelling argument, but when they get sued for this, that is the gist of what they'll likely argue.

At August 29, 2006 at 10:42 PM, Blogger The Law Fairy said...

hahaha, "when they get sued." Didn't you know the next version of the Patriot Act is going to write in sovereign immunity for all branches of government, all government offices, and all government employees, with respect to actions taken in any respect remotely in support of the War on Terror??

(I'm joking, dudes. This is what happens when you find out you're not allowed to sleep for most of the week, thanks to opposing counsel. Grr, dammit)

At August 30, 2006 at 2:46 AM, Blogger NWsixer said...

Excellent news.

This now means that here in the UK we can ban practically every Australian from coming to London and moanaing about how bad the weather is due to their great great great grandfather being an exported felon.

Hail to the wise old FBI!

On a more serious note... this is all very "1984".

At August 30, 2006 at 10:49 AM, Blogger Drewcatt said...

Honestly, I can see both sides of this agrument, I just choose to come down on the side that holds the assumption, "innocent until proven guilty".

It does beg the question though; why does the FBI want to interrogate these guys without attorneys, and outside the U.S.?

At August 30, 2006 at 4:41 PM, Blogger The Law Fairy said...

sixer, send the Aussies here! Mmmmmmm, Australian men...

I loved 1984. But only as fiction.

drew, I can *see* both sides, but I can also clearly see which one is right. Okay, they are on a watch list, it sounds like even for good reason. SO, search their bags, make extra sure they don't carry on anything dangerous, then send them here, let them get a lawyer, and question them HERE, in THEIR COUNTRY, in which AS CITIZENS THEY HAVE RIGHTS NO MATTER WHAT THEY ARE ACCUSED OF. I mean, there is a Clear Right Answer to this one, and the government did not get it.

At August 30, 2006 at 4:44 PM, Blogger Lazerlou said...

Drew as a legal matter, there isn't much to say for the FBI, unless you think being prevented from returning to the USA and returning to your home is not a denial of life, liberty or property. The FBI wants a lie dectector test and because these guys refused they placed them on the no fly list, effectively punishing them without a hearing or cause. That is a violation of due process guranteed by our consititution.

At August 30, 2006 at 7:18 PM, Blogger Drewcatt said...

Oh, don't get me wrong, I'm as livid as you guys.

The question was more satirical... as in, why would the FBI want to keep American citizens, guaranteed certain rights, away from all the things that would protect those rights...?

It sounds as if something fishy was going on, as if that second interrogation was going to be something else.

That's what I was trying to (poorly) allude to.

At August 30, 2006 at 7:35 PM, Blogger Drewcatt said...

Did I just say the question was more satirical...????

Ignore me, I'm an idiot.

At August 30, 2006 at 8:19 PM, Blogger The Law Fairy said...

drew, as Alanis would say, how ironic!


At August 30, 2006 at 8:22 PM, Blogger The Law Fairy said...

Oh, and I got the sarcasm -- I was addressing the earlier point, but like you say, I think we're in agreement on that. In fact, I think it's a perfect example of my thoughts on this subject. Like, okay, they get information on people who legitimately sound like they could be fishy. They have reasonable suspicion, they can get a warrant, they can bring them in for questioning and observe their rights in the US, where they are citizens. Okay, so, good job government, finding the possibly-bad peeps.

But BAD BAD BAD job treating American citizens like third-world terrorists before they've even had a chance to so much as call their lawyers. Bad, bad, BAD. Citizenship is supposed to mean something!!


Post a Comment

<< Home