Become a part of the TranceAddict community!Frequently Asked Questions - Please read this if you haven'tSearch the forums
TranceAddict Forums > Other > Political Discussion / Debate > 1950 - FBI had plan to suspend Habeas Corpus and arrest 12,000 Americans
Pages (2): [1] 2 »   Last Thread   Next Thread
Share
Author
Thread    Post A Reply
Krypton
83.798 g/6.022x10^23



Registered: Nov 2003
Location: Texas
1950 - FBI had plan to suspend Habeas Corpus and arrest 12,000 Americans

The greatest danger to our republic is not foreign enemies, not osama bin laden, or other foreign enemies. Our greatest enemy is unconstitutional oversized government.

quote:
Hoover Planned Mass Jailing in 1950

By TIM WEINER
Published: December 23, 2007

A newly declassified document shows that J. Edgar Hoover, the longtime director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation, had a plan to suspend habeas corpus and imprison some 12,000 Americans he suspected of disloyalty.

Hoover sent his plan to the White House on July 7, 1950, 12 days after the Korean War began. It envisioned putting suspect Americans in military prisons.

Hoover wanted President Harry S. Truman to proclaim the mass arrests necessary to “protect the country against treason, espionage and sabotage.” The F.B.I would “apprehend all individuals potentially dangerous” to national security, Hoover’s proposal said. The arrests would be carried out under “a master warrant attached to a list of names” provided by the bureau.

The names were part of an index that Hoover had been compiling for years. “The index now contains approximately twelve thousand individuals, of which approximately ninety-seven per cent are citizens of the United States,” he wrote.

“In order to make effective these apprehensions, the proclamation suspends the Writ of Habeas Corpus,” it said.

Habeas corpus, the right to seek relief from illegal detention, has been a fundamental principle of law for seven centuries. The Bush administration’s decision to hold suspects for years at Guantánamo Bay, Cuba, has made habeas corpus a contentious issue for Congress and the Supreme Court today.

The Constitution says habeas corpus shall not be suspended “unless when in cases of rebellion or invasion, the public safety may require it.” The plan proposed by Hoover, the head of the F.B.I. from 1924 to 1972, stretched that clause to include “threatened invasion” or “attack upon United States troops in legally occupied territory.”

After the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, President Bush issued an order that effectively allowed the United States to hold suspects indefinitely without a hearing, a lawyer, or formal charges. In September 2006, Congress passed a law suspending habeas corpus for anyone deemed an “unlawful enemy combatant.”

But the Supreme Court has reaffirmed the right of American citizens to seek a writ of habeas corpus. This month the court heard arguments on whether about 300 foreigners held at Guantánamo Bay had the same rights. It is expected to rule by next summer.

Hoover’s plan was declassified Friday as part of a collection of cold-war documents concerning intelligence issues from 1950 to 1955. The collection makes up a new volume of “The Foreign Relations of the United States,” a series that by law has been published continuously by the State Department since the Civil War.

Hoover’s plan called for “the permanent detention” of the roughly 12,000 suspects at military bases as well as in federal prisons. The F.B.I., he said, had found that the arrests it proposed in New York and California would cause the prisons there to overflow.

So the bureau had arranged for “detention in military facilities of the individuals apprehended” in those states, he wrote.

The prisoners eventually would have had a right to a hearing under the Hoover plan. The hearing board would have been a panel made up of one judge and two citizens. But the hearings “will not be bound by the rules of evidence,” his letter noted.

The only modern precedent for Hoover’s plan was the Palmer Raids of 1920, named after the attorney general at the time. The raids, executed in large part by Hoover’s intelligence division, swept up thousands of people suspected of being communists and radicals.

Previously declassified documents show that the F.B.I.’s “security index” of suspect Americans predated the cold war. In March 1946, Hoover sought the authority to detain Americans “who might be dangerous” if the United States went to war. In August 1948, Attorney General Tom Clark gave the F.B.I. the power to make a master list of such people.

Hoover’s July 1950 letter was addressed to Sidney W. Souers, who had served as the first director of central intelligence and was then a special national-security assistant to Truman. The plan also was sent to the executive secretary of the National Security Council, whose members were the president, the secretary of defense, the secretary of state and the military chiefs.

In September 1950, Congress passed and the president signed a law authorizing the detention of “dangerous radicals” if the president declared a national emergency. Truman did declare such an emergency in December 1950, after China entered the Korean War. But no known evidence suggests he or any other president approved any part of Hoover’s proposal.


http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/23/w...n/23habeas.html


___________________

Old Post Dec-24-2007 04:56  Korea-Democratic Peoples Republic
Click Here to See the Profile for Krypton Click here to Send Krypton a Private Message Visit Krypton's homepage! Add Krypton to your buddy list Report this Post Reply w/Quote Edit/Delete Message
Q5echo
asymetrical scepticism



Registered: Feb 2004
Location: Dallas

i'm not at all advocating Hoover's idea, but if you are so quick to pull out the Constitutuional argument how do you reconcile the words of our Founding Fathers: habeas corpus shall not be suspended unless when in cases of rebellion or invasion, the public safety may require it.” with the idea that our greatest enemy could come from within?

EDIT> or what i should say is, how do you even begin to pull the Constitutional argument as a reaction to this? it's absurd if you really consider yourself an originalist.

Last edited by Q5echo on Dec-24-2007 at 05:48

Old Post Dec-24-2007 05:11  United States
Click Here to See the Profile for Q5echo Click here to Send Q5echo a Private Message Add Q5echo to your buddy list Report this Post Reply w/Quote Edit/Delete Message
Lebezniatnikov
Stupidity Annoys Me



Registered: Feb 2004
Location: DC

Our greatest enemy is over-sized government? That's seriously what you took away from that article?


___________________

Old Post Dec-24-2007 06:02  United Nations
Click Here to See the Profile for Lebezniatnikov Click here to Send Lebezniatnikov a Private Message Add Lebezniatnikov to your buddy list Report this Post Reply w/Quote Edit/Delete Message
pkcRAISTLIN
arbiter's chief minion



Registered: Jul 2002
Location:

all i see is government working as it should- ie the FBI can desire to do whatever they want, but they are still held in check by the executive.

call me crazy, but i am much more concerned with plans that are actually executed.


___________________

Old Post Dec-24-2007 06:32  Australia
Click Here to See the Profile for pkcRAISTLIN Click here to Send pkcRAISTLIN a Private Message Add pkcRAISTLIN to your buddy list Report this Post Reply w/Quote Edit/Delete Message
pkcRAISTLIN
arbiter's chief minion



Registered: Jul 2002
Location:

i also find arguments that refer to the "founding fathers" to be inherently crap. i mean, i know you're all brought up to revere them and all, but australians would be hard pressed to name our first prime minister, and yet our democracy is still superior to yours.

the problem with the whole "founding fathers" reference is that they might have been awesome men for their day, but they werent fucking seers. why we need to refer to them several hundred years later is a little beyond me. ive read but i certainly dont quote plato.

there's nothing wrong with paying homage to your heritage, but your constitution was written eons ago, and referring to it when you need to decide what is wrong or right is pretty problematic imo. the UK and australia do not have a constitution in the same vein as the US one, and i think both countries are profoundly better off because of it.

let the shitfight begin!!


___________________

Old Post Dec-24-2007 10:42  Australia
Click Here to See the Profile for pkcRAISTLIN Click here to Send pkcRAISTLIN a Private Message Add pkcRAISTLIN to your buddy list Report this Post Reply w/Quote Edit/Delete Message
Capitalizt
Supreme tranceaddict



Registered: Feb 2005
Location: USA

quote:
Originally posted by Q5echo
i'm not at all advocating Hoover's idea, but if you are so quick to pull out the Constitutuional argument how do you reconcile the words of our Founding Fathers: habeas corpus shall not be suspended unless when in cases of rebellion or invasion, the public safety may require it.” with the idea that our greatest enemy could come from within?


I don't see any invasion of rebellion in America today, yet Bush has already suspended habeas corpus for all Americans. If the government deems your actions or ideas "subversive", you can be pulled off the street, stripped of your rights, and held without representation indefinitely. The last time habeas corpus was suspended was during the U.S. Civil War...which was the ultimate definition of "rebellion".

The fact that this has happened today should concern every citizen, especially so-called "conservatives"...who used to be wary of giving government this type of power.

http://usgovinfo.about.com/od/right...abeuscorpus.htm

Old Post Dec-24-2007 11:03  United States
Click Here to See the Profile for Capitalizt Click here to Send Capitalizt a Private Message Add Capitalizt to your buddy list Report this Post Reply w/Quote Edit/Delete Message
Q5echo
asymetrical scepticism



Registered: Feb 2004
Location: Dallas

quote:
Originally posted by Capitalizt
I don't see any invasion of rebellion in America today, yet Bush has already suspended habeas corpus for all Americans. If the government deems your actions or ideas "subversive", you can be pulled off the street, stripped of your rights, and held without representation indefinitely. The last time habeas corpus was suspended was during the U.S. Civil War...which was the ultimate definition of "rebellion".

The fact that this has happened today should concern every citizen, especially so-called "conservatives"...who used to be wary of giving government this type of power.

http://usgovinfo.about.com/od/right...abeuscorpus.htm


wow, About.com really got you scared. thats the problem with the internets i guess

where do i begin. a lawyer obviously didn't write that About.com set of answers because a lawyer instinctively knows there aren't 350,000,000 sets of handcuffs to "suspended habeas corpus for all Americans". see a lawyer would know that what the MCA really intended was for "suspension of habeas corpus" only applicable to AN (singular) American if deemed an "unlawful enemy combatant". mind you, we're talking about American citizens now, not foreigners, not residents, no one but American citizens.

now if you want to discuss the definition of "unlawful enemy combatant" during the GWOT thats fine but evidence would still would need to be presented to an independent judiciary regarding American defendants described as "unlawful enemy combatants"

i realize it's easy to fantasize about some Orwellian environment with guys in black suits and dark sunglasses picking up your crazy Uncle Rufus for making illegal fireworks in his barn and him never being seen again, but the reality is that for any American citizen to be picked up by the Feds and tried for anything in any court requires some thorough coordination by many independent agencies.

thank God for an independent judiciary because i guarantee you that no court in the land would uphold the suspension of Habeas rights of an American citizen on a whim for longer than the time it would take process for arraignment and set bail.

and to say that Bush by his lonesome suspended Habeas Corpus is kind of a misnomer because the Habeas clause appears in Art.1 of the Constitution meaning that it really belongs to the Congress.

Old Post Dec-24-2007 12:24  United States
Click Here to See the Profile for Q5echo Click here to Send Q5echo a Private Message Add Q5echo to your buddy list Report this Post Reply w/Quote Edit/Delete Message
Capitalizt
Supreme tranceaddict



Registered: Feb 2005
Location: USA

Q5, my point is..as unlikely as it is that any American will be picked up on a whim and held without trial, the fact that the government CAN do this and LEGALLY should be a great concern to you. Congress passed the law and the President signed it. So for all intents and purposes, habeas corpus is dead. The Supreme Court has not accepted any cases challenging the military commissions act, so it remains the law of the land.

A few years ago, I couldn't imagine agreeing with this guy, but he is dead right on the issue:



Old Post Dec-24-2007 13:59  United States
Click Here to See the Profile for Capitalizt Click here to Send Capitalizt a Private Message Add Capitalizt to your buddy list Report this Post Reply w/Quote Edit/Delete Message
pkcRAISTLIN
arbiter's chief minion



Registered: Jul 2002
Location:

and here was i thinking insulting the US constitution would give me a battle


___________________

Old Post Dec-24-2007 15:41  Australia
Click Here to See the Profile for pkcRAISTLIN Click here to Send pkcRAISTLIN a Private Message Add pkcRAISTLIN to your buddy list Report this Post Reply w/Quote Edit/Delete Message
Capitalizt
Supreme tranceaddict



Registered: Feb 2005
Location: USA

quote:
Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN
and here was i thinking insulting the US constitution would give me a battle


It's got some fight left in it yet!!



Old Post Dec-24-2007 16:43  United States
Click Here to See the Profile for Capitalizt Click here to Send Capitalizt a Private Message Add Capitalizt to your buddy list Report this Post Reply w/Quote Edit/Delete Message
MrJiveBoJingles
Supreme tranceaddict



Registered: Jun 2004
Location: U.S.

quote:
Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN
i also find arguments that refer to the "founding fathers" to be inherently crap.

These are usually brought up in disputes over how to interpret the U.S. Constitution. I don't see a problem with using historical context -- what the writers and ratifiers of the Constitution said and did -- to figure out how to read an old document. That's just good interpretive practice...

Old Post Dec-24-2007 18:58  United States
Click Here to See the Profile for MrJiveBoJingles Click here to Send MrJiveBoJingles a Private Message Add MrJiveBoJingles to your buddy list Report this Post Reply w/Quote Edit/Delete Message
shaolin_Z
Hei Hu Quan



Registered: Nov 2004
Location: Austin, Texas, USA: TXTA #102

quote:
Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN
all i see is government working as it should- ie the FBI can desire to do whatever they want, but they are still held in check by the executive.

call me crazy, but i am much more concerned with plans that are actually executed.

You're crazy .


___________________
"The Greatest enemy of knowledge is not ignorance, it is the illusion of knowledge." -Stephen Hawking
"First they came for the communists, and I did not speak out— because I was not a communist;
Then they came for the socialists, and I did not speak out— because I was not a socialist;
Then they came for the trade unionists, and I did not speak out— because I was not a trade unionist;
Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out— because I was not a Jew;
Then they came for me— and there was no one left to speak out for me." -Martin Niemöller

Old Post Dec-24-2007 20:15  United States
Click Here to See the Profile for shaolin_Z Click here to Send shaolin_Z a Private Message Add shaolin_Z to your buddy list Report this Post Reply w/Quote Edit/Delete Message

TranceAddict Forums > Other > Political Discussion / Debate > 1950 - FBI had plan to suspend Habeas Corpus and arrest 12,000 Americans
Post New Thread    Post A Reply

Pages (2): [1] 2 »  
Last Thread   Next Thread
Click here to listen to the sample!Pause playbackcox ID [2005] [0]

Click here to listen to the sample!Pause playbackSavon Feat. Andy Jay Powell - "Children Of Paradise" (DJ Shah Mix) [2003]

Show Printable Version | Subscribe to this Thread
Forum Jump:

All times are GMT. The time now is 05:23.

Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not edit your posts
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
[IMG] code is ON
 
Search this Thread:

 
Contact Us - return to tranceaddict

Powered by: Trance Music & vBulletin Forums
Copyright ©2000-2026, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Privacy Statement / DMCA
Support TA!