One man still locked up from 9/11 sweeps

In a jail cell at an immigration detention center in Arizona sits a man who is not charged with a crime, not suspected of a crime, not considered a danger to society.

Constitutionally he cannot be held without being charged. Don’t believe me? Read the Fifth Amendment:

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger....

Has the man been indicted? No. Has he been charged with a crime, infamous or otherwise? No.

But he has been in custody for five years.

I’m pretty sure that that’s illegal. I’m also pretty sure that it’s unconstitutional, and that since it’s unconstitutional, no one will give a damn except “extremists” like myself who give a damn about preserving our rights.

His name is Ali Partovi. And according to the Department of Homeland Security, he is the last to be held of about 1,200 Arab and Muslim men swept up by authorities in the United States after the September 11, 2001, terror attacks.

If Mr. Partovi is not even suspected of a crime, then how can he still be in custody five years later? It boggles the mind.

There has been no full accounting of all of these individuals. Nor has a promised federal policy to protect against unrestricted sweeps been produced.

All very reassuring, I assure you! We don’t need silly things such as guarantees against tyranny; we’re just fine the way we are.

Just this summer, it was reported that an Algerian man, Benemar “Ben” Benatta, was the last detainee, and that his transfer to Canada had closed the book on the post-9/11 sweeps.

But now The Associated Press has learned that at least one person—Partovi—is still being held. The Department of Homeland Security insists he really is the last one in custody.

Of course Mr. Partovi is the last one in custody due to post-9/11 sweeps! After all, the DHS was so sure that Mr. Benatta was, and he turned out to be the last—oh.

“Certainly it’s not our goal as an agency to keep anyone detained indefinitely,” said DHS spokesman Dean Boyd.

Then why is Mr. Partovi still in DHS custody, Mr. Boyd?

Boyd said the department would like to remove Partovi from the United States but that he refuses to return to his homeland of Iran.

The article later says that he came in on a fake passport, so I can see why they wouldn’t free him inside the U.S. But if he doesn’t want to return to Iran, why not Britain? Why not France? Germany? Spain? Italy? I’m sure the boys at the Department of Homeland Security could make arrangements for Mr. Partovi in one of those countries.

That’s beside the point. Here legally or not, Mr. Partovi is still entitled to Constitutional protections: The Constitution is not limited to U.S. citizens; rather, it applies to anyone inside the United States. Find for me where it says otherwise and I’ll shave my head in mid-May 2007.

Boyd stressed that guidelines were set up in 2004 to make sure detainees’ rights are being protected on a case-by-case basis.

I had no idea that people had different rights than others! Thank you for enforcing what I could not see in the Constitution.

“We learned from the past,” he said. “We evaluate each situation to make sure it’s being handled fairly.”

Here’s what you “evaluate each situation” with: the text of the Constitution.

I just realized something, folks. Throughout the entirety of this post I have made the mistake of assuming that the Constitution is something to be followed; however, it is, in reality, just a damned piece of paper. I refuse to erase my words, however, so that I may look at past follies and prevent repeating them in the future.

After all, knowing the past is the key to not repeat it in the future.

It appears that that in and of itself is a folly, too. Knowing the past is not necessary; all it does is chain you down to the limitations of past generations. Ignoring the past is the key to a peaceful future. Why, if you paid any attention to the past, you might start a war over something ancestors did 300 years ago, or you might lead people to mistakenly believe that Lincoln was racist or that FDR knew that the Japanese were going to bomb Pearl Harbor.

[…] Read the original article.
[+] Add post to your del.icio.us.