Civilian Detention Camps

[Clara T]

CIVILIAN DETENTION CAMPS
by Carl Jensen

"It is extremely easy for us to say that the German people, for instance, even under the threat of physical violence, shouldn’t have allowed their government to do what it did. But we of the United States, under no intimidating threats and with a long history of individual freedom, did not stop this forced evacuation which took place over a number of months and subjected many thousands of local citizens not only to bewilderment and misery of barren, crowded barracks but to large, permanent losses in the form of hard earned businesses and properties; sudden amputation of plans and hopes; disillusionment about their citizenship in America. If we ask ourselves why we did not stop it, and listen to the reasons we start to put forth, perhaps we may understand why similar questions asked Germans about ‘stopping Hitler’ are in reality too vague and inadequate to be helpful."

"Knowing what those camps meant to people caught up in the event of the 1940’s, knowing the shame that afflicts the American people as we look back on the incarceration and dislocation of a people because of their race, , we can only feel repugnance and fear at the fact that today we have locations available for another round-up <1970’s and again in 1999> and that we live under a law which would permit another mass detention of people without any proof that they had committed any illegal actions."

Source: Committee on the Judiciary House of Representatives, Prohibiting Detention Camps, March 18, 1971, Pg. 93.

<snip>

The Detention Act of 1950

In 1950, Congress, concerned about communism, passed the Detention Act of 1950. The Detention Act of 1950 (the "Act") can be found in the series of books called the "Statutes at Large" in any law library. This law gave the government the capability to arrest and detain those people or groups which were deemed to be subversive and a threat to the government of the United States, and hold people in detention camps around the country.

<snip>

Should this country experience a national emergency, whether real or fabricated, that grows into a perceived crisis situation, the President, through Executive Order 12919 may declare Martial Law, and federal resources will be committed with or without local or state requests. It should also be noted that FEMA will take control of all aspects of the government infrastructure, the Constitution will be suspended, and in fact this country will be under the control of a military dictatorship.

More:
http://www.mindcontrolforums.com/civdc.htm

[brainshrub]

1. Y'know, I remember RWers talking like this when Clinton was president.

Leave the tinfoil at home.

[Marie26]

2. The Detention Act was repealed in 1971

In 1971, Congress passed legislation to repeal the Emergency Detention Act of 1950 and to enact the following language: “No citizen shall be imprisoned or otherwise detained by the United States except pursuant to an Act of Congress.” The new language, codified at 18 U.S.C. §4001(a), is called the Non-Detention Act.

[Clara T]

6. That's right and that repeal is being challenged by H.R. 1076

Louis Fisher Slams Detention of US Citizens Without Trial in CRS Report

Secrecy News 04/28/05 breaks the story of a new report from the Congressional Research Service that disputes the Bush Administration’s claim that the President has unlimited authority to detain American citizens in wartime if he deems them to be enemy combatants.

Significantly, “Detention of U.S. Citizens,” Congressional Research Service, April 28, 2005, is by the highly respected Louis Fisher, an authority on constitutional law.

The introduction says that the report is aimed at a core issue raised in the Padilla case:

In 1971, Congress passed legislation to repeal the Emergency Detention Act of 1950 and to enact the following language: “No citizen shall be imprisoned or otherwise detained by the United States except pursuant to an Act of Congress.” The new language, codified at 18 U.S.C. §4001(a), is called the Non-Detention Act. This statutory provision received attention after the 9/11 terrorist attacks when the Administration designated certain U.S. citizens as “enemy combatants” and claimed the right to detain them indefinitely without charging them, bringing them to trial, or giving them access to counsel. In litigation over Yaser Esam Hamdi and Jose Padilla, both designated enemy combatants, the Administration has argued that the Non-Detention Act restricts only imprisonments and detentions by the Attorney General, not by the President or military authorities.

And the conclusion is blunt:

Legislative debate, committee reports, and the political context of 1971 indicate that when Congress enacted Section 4001(a) it intended the statutory language to restrict all detentions by the executive branch, not merely those by the Attorney General. Lawmakers, both supporters and opponents of Section 4001(a), recognized that it would restrict the President and military authorities.

http://www.discourse.net/archives/2005/04/louis_fisher_slams_detention_of_us_citizens_without_trial_in_crs_report.html

109th CONGRESS

1st Session

H. R. 1076

To authorize the President to detain an enemy combatant who is a United States person or resident who is a member of al Qaeda or knowingly cooperated with members of al Qaeda, to guarantee timely access to judicial review to challenge the basis for a detention, to permit the detainee access to counsel, and for other purposes.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

March 3, 2005

Mr. SCHIFF introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary, and in addition to the Committee on Armed Services, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned

A BILL

To authorize the President to detain an enemy combatant who is a United States person or resident who is a member of al Qaeda or knowingly cooperated with members of al Qaeda, to guarantee timely access to judicial review to challenge the basis for a detention, to permit the detainee access to counsel, and for other purposes.

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

This Act may be cited as the `Detention of Enemy Combatants Act'.

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c109:H.R.1076.IH:

[Marie26]

7. Did that bill pass? nt

[jimshoes]

3. Given the successes (actually the lack of) they've had in Iraq

I wonder if they would really try to implement such a thing here?


"It should also be noted that FEMA will take control of all aspects of the government infrastructure, the Constitution will be suspended, and in fact this country will be under the control of a military dictatorship".

BTW if FEMA is going to control all aspects of infrastructure and knowing how well they performed after Katrina, methinks they should think twice before implementing that EO.

[Marie26]

5. Could you imagine Brownie running the country?

It'd be the most incompetant coup ever. They'd forget to send the guns to the FEMA guards, inadvertantly broadcast their plans on TV, and run around talking to reporters & arranging dog care instead of managing the coup. We'd take FEMA down easy. :)

[jimshoes]

8. It would be like watching

a Three Stooges movie. :evilgrin:

[atommom]

4. KBR just got a DHS contract to build camps. How much do we trust them?

KBR awarded Homeland Security contract worth up to $385M (HAL) By Katherine Hunt
SAN FRANCISCO (MarketWatch) -- KBR, the engineering and construction subsidiary of Halliburton Co. (HAL) , said Tuesday it has been awarded a contingency contract from the Department of Homeland Security to supports its Immigration and Customs Enforcement facilities in the event of an emergency. The maximum total value of the contract is $385 million and consists of a 1-year base period with four 1-year options. KBR held the previous ICE contract from 2000 through 2005. The contract, which is effective immediately, provides for establishing temporary detention and processing capabilities to expand existing ICE Detention and Removal Operations Program facilities in the event of an emergency influx of immigrants into the U.S., or to support the rapid development of new programs, KBR said. The contract may also provide migrant detention support to other government organizations in the event of an immigration emergency, as well as the development of a plan to react to a national emergency, such as a natural disaster, the company said.


(This is the full story, from marketwatch.com.)
http://www.marketwatch.com/news/newsfinder/pulseone.asp?dist=SignInArchive¶m=archive&siteid=mktw&guid=&dateid=38741.5136277662-858254656

[Karenina]

9. Related thread in LBN

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=102x2062553