JACL Signs on to Amicus Brief in ‘Dirty Bomber’ Case

 By CAROLINE AOYAGI, Pacific Citizen Executive Editor

In a continuing effort to challenge the merits of the U.S.A. Patriot Act, the JACL announced that is has signed on to an amicus brief in the Jose Padilla enemy combatant case, better known as the “dirty bomber” case.

The JACL is questioning the authority of the U.S. government to detain U.S. citizens indefinitely under provisions of the Patriot Act and calling the detention of Padilla unconstitutional.

“We’re questioning whether the government, under the authority of the U.S. Patriot Act, can detain an American citizen indefinitely and whether the President has authority to order such detention within the borders of the country,” said John Tateishi, JACL executive director.

“It’s important for our members to understand that we place no judgment on guilt or innocence in this case, but feel compelled to question the authority of the government to act in a manner that echoes the detention of Japanese Americans during World War II.”

The amicus brief was filed in the U.S. Supreme Court in Donald Rumsfeld vs. Jose Padilla.

In addition to JACL, other individuals and organizations signing on to the amicus brief are: Fred Korematsu, the Bar Association of San Francisco, Asian Law Caucus, Asian American Bar Association For the Greater Bay Area, and Asian Pacific Islander Legal Outreach.

Jose Padilla was arrested shortly after the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks by Federal agents under a material witness warrant in connection with a grand jury investigation of the attacks. Later, the Department of Defense took custody of Padilla, an American citizen, and for the next 18 months he was not allowed to have contact with his counsel, family, or other non-military personnel. After two years Padilla has been held indefinitely without having been charged with any crime.

The U.S. Court of Appeals For the Second Circuit said Padilla should have been allowed contact with his attorney and that his detention was unwarranted. The U.S. government than appealed the court’s decision to the U.S. Supreme Court.

The Second Circuit’s decision was largely based on the Non-Detention Act which states that no American citizen can be detained without the authorization of the U.S. Congress. The Non-Detention Act was passed after the Emergency Detention Act of 1950 was repealed, a decision largely based on the unlawful detention of the JA community during World War II.

And it is this argument that is used in the recently filed amicus brief.

The JA community has been vocal in its opposition to the U.S.A. Patriot Act which allows for increased governmental powers including increased search and detention powers.

JAs are quick to see the similarities between their own forced incarceration during WWII, where 110,000 Americans of Japanese ancestry were placed in American concentration camps, and the current targeting of Arab and Muslim Americans in the fight against terrorism.

JACL and the other amici state in the brief: “No once can dispute the horror inflicted upon the Nation on that date. However, as illustrated by the Japanese American detention and Congress’ response over the past fifty years, it is important to carefully balance our concerns of safety and security with those of our freedoms and civil liberties. That is the price we pay for democracy.”