Quote:
|
Originally Posted by irateplatypus
well, then get ready to be chilled my friend. I must refer you to Korematsu -vs- The United States. The Supreme Court did exactly that in 1944.
|
I'm afraid the SCOTUS did not do "exactly that" in that case, if by "exactly that" you mean what I meant, namely "internment of the Japanese population". All they did is rule that it is constitutional for Japanese Americans to be "excluded from certain areas on the West Coast" where military installations existed.
At no time in the history of this country has any court ruled that it was permissible for the president to set up a prison camp system for Japanese Americans not accused of a crime. On the contrary, the SCOTUS at about the same time as Korematsu ruled the camps unconstitutional in ex parte Endo.
And of course Korematsu is completely irrelevant to Padilla and was never even brought up by the prosecutor in his case.
It surprises me that anybody would use the Japanese internment camps as a reason not to get too concerned about Padilla. The logic here escapes me.
And again, my larger point is this: the power granted by Padilla to the president in the current "war on terror" context is way beyond any legal precedent. There is nothing in the Padilla case that ensures that Padilla will ever be released, since the "war on terror" has no definable end. And the same goes for any other "enemy combatant" which could be anybody, because "terror" is the enemy.
Quote:
KOREMATSU v. UNITED STATES
No. 22
SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
323 U.S. 214; 65 S. Ct. 193; 89 L. Ed. 194; 1944
The exclusion of citizens of Japanese extraction from certain areas on the West Coast at the beginning of the war with Japan, as authorized by congressional enactment (Act of March 21, 1942) and Executive Order (9066), was a valid exercise of the war power at the time these laws went into effect, even as applied to a citizen of Japanese extraction whose loyalty to the United States was unquestioned, where at that time invasion by Japan was threatened, every possible precaution against espionage and sabotage was necessary, and it was impossible, in the short time available, to separate the loyal from the disloyal Japanese.
|
Quote:
EX PARTE MITSUYE ENDO
No. 70
SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
323 U.S. 283; 65 S. Ct. 208; 89 L. Ed. 243; 1944 U.S.
The War Relocation Authority is without power to detain in one of its relocation centers a Japanese citizen whose loyalty to the United States is unquestioned, or to condition the release of such citizen upon her compliance with regulations and restrictions regarding leave clearance and other conditions of resettlement, in the light of the statute (Act of March 21, 1942) and the Executive Orders (9066, 9102) forming the basis of the Japanese evacuation program, where at best the power of detention under these statutes and orders is granted only by implication, and their sole object and purpose is, not to combat community hostility to Japanese, but to protect the United States against espionage or sabotage in time of war.
|