Wen Ho Lee Next Time -- Patriot Act Threatens Asia

[achtungbaby]

By Victor M. Hwang and Ivy Lee
Pacific News Service

Early last year in a meeting with civil rights leaders, Sen. Dianne Feinstein singled out the Asian American community as the one that would face the greatest threat to civil liberties in the foreseeable future. Because of the rise of China as a global threat, Feinstein explained, Chinese Americans and Asian Americans would be the target of increasing hate violence and government targeting similar to that experienced by Los Alamos scientist Dr. Wen Ho Lee.

Charged with violating atomic energy and espionage acts and suspected of passing secrets to China, Lee spent nine months in solitary confinement. Charges were dismissed on Sept. 13, 2000.

Nine days after the terrible tragedy of Sept. 11, 2001, the Department of Justice was already circulating a proposal to drastically expand its ability to investigate and prosecute those suspected of "domestic terrorism." It was quickly passed by a panicked Congress with little scrutiny or debate, even though there was little evidence that any of the new provisions under the so-called Patriot Act would have prevented the 9-11 attacks. Few dared to question the wisdom of yielding civil rights in the aftermath of the terrorist attacks. Many thought this "Patriot Act" would apply only to others: foreign terrorists or Arab Americans.

full story (http://yellowworld.org/modules.php?op=modload&name=News&file=article&sid=133)

[SunWuKong]

i found out that when the wen ho lee case happened, my mother's cousin who works in defense was also thoroughly investigated, as well as his 70+ year-old father. i don't know if they did anything that warranted the investigations. his father has been in the US for about 40 years, and his son (my mother's cousin) was born right here in the States.

[BeTheReds]

Oh! So Wen Ho Lee was THAT guy. So he was innocent? Who really gave the secrets to the Chinese?

[MellowDrama]

Originally posted by Bethereds@Oct 29 2002, 08:50 AM
Oh! So Wen Ho Lee was THAT guy. So he was innocent? Who really gave the secrets to the Chinese?
Please tell me you were either ( A ) out of the country at the time the Wen Ho Lee stuff went down or ( B ) being sarcastic. [and I'm not being a smart ass when I'm saying this, I'm just really confused because it was pretty big news here in the US.]

:confused:

As for the outcome, he plead guilty to 1 count of mishandling data. But insiders in the government said (off the record) that he was specifically singled out for his race and then the judge in the case personally apologized to him for the government's unfair treatment of him.

http://216.239.37.100/search?q=cache:EoHOF...&hl=en&ie=UTF-8 (http://216.239.37.100/search?q=cache:EoHOFFlBOaAC:abcnews.go.com/sections/us/DailyNews/wenholee000913.html+%22wen+ho+lee+pleads%22&hl=en&ie=UTF-8)



<!--EDIT|MellowDrama|Oct 29 2002, 09:25 AM-->

[BeTheReds]

Originally posted by MellowDrama@Oct 29 2002, 09:14 AM

Please tell me you were either ( A ) out of the country at the time the Wen Ho Lee stuff went down or ( B ) being sarcastic. [and I'm not being a smart ass when I'm saying this, I'm just really confused because tt was pretty big news here in the US.]

:confused:

As for the outcome, he plead guilty to 1 count of mishandling data. But insiders in the government said he was specifically singled out for his race and then the judge in the case personally apologized to him for the government's unfair treatment of him.

http://216.239.37.100/search?q=cache:EoHOF...&hl=en&ie=UTF-8 (http://216.239.37.100/search?q=cache:EoHOFFlBOaAC:abcnews.go.com/sections/us/DailyNews/wenholee000913.html+%22wen+ho+lee+pleads%22&hl=en&ie=UTF-8)
Good! I'm glad when justice is served. He should sue the press for libel because I thought he was guilty right away they way that the press handled it. Also the press obviously didn't do too good of a job covering the story of him being innocent. I never knew the outcome. Probably millions of Americans still think that a Taiwanese-American gave it up to the Chinese.

No, I was in the country at the time, I just forgot the guy's name. If you had said that guy who was accused of giveing secrets to the chinese then I woulda known who you were talking about. This is in reference to another thread when I criticized my AASU at the UMCP and used the fact that I didn't know who Wen Ho Lee was as an example. No one bothered to tell me who he was so I ended up searching the threads to see if I could find him.

[sandra]

Originally posted by Bethereds@Oct 29 2002, 08:26 AM
He should sue the press for libel because I thought he was guilty right away they way that the press handled it.
being done. not suing the press for libel but suing another official for defamation.


RE: US PATRIOT ACT - IT IS AFFECTING ASIANS

to be put in full effect in november - all non-u.s. citizens working as airport security will be laid off. a new act has been passed requiring all airport screeners to be u.s. citizens. this means that all permanent residents and u.s. nationals will lose their jobs. in san francisco, permanent residents comprise of 70% of airport screeners. i don't have the numbers, but we can imagine how many of those people are chinese. soon to be out of jobs...because why? we think they might be potential terrorists.

[BeTheReds]

Originally posted by kasia@Oct 30 2002, 04:15 AM
a new act has been passed requiring all airport screeners to be u.s. citizens. this means that all permanent residents and u.s. nationals will lose their jobs
what is the difference between a u.s. national and a u.s. citizen? I thought that there were only citizens and residents.

It is unfortunate that that law has been passed, but with Norm Mineta at the helm of US Transportation, you can't really say that it's the racist white people targeting nonwhites.

[SunWuKong]

Originally posted by kasia@Oct 29 2002, 11:15 PM
RE: US PATRIOT ACT - IT IS AFFECTING ASIANS

to be put in full effect in november - all non-u.s. citizens working as airport security will be laid off. a new act has been passed requiring all airport screeners to be u.s. citizens. this means that all permanent residents and u.s. nationals will lose their jobs. in san francisco, permanent residents comprise of 70% of airport screeners. i don't have the numbers, but we can imagine how many of those people are chinese. soon to be out of jobs...because why? we think they might be potential terrorists.
correct me if i'm wrong, but i thought that filippino people were the asian group that comprises the most of non-citizen airport screeners.

[MellowDrama]

Originally posted by BeTheReds@Oct 29 2002, 10:43 PM
Originally posted by kasia@Oct 30 2002, 04:15 AM
a new act has been passed requiring all airport screeners to be u.s. citizens. this means that all permanent residents and u.s. nationals will lose their jobs
what is the difference between a u.s. national and a u.s. citizen? I thought that there were only citizens and residents.

It is unfortunate that that law has been passed, but with Norm Mineta at the helm of US Transportation, you can't really say that it's the racist white people targeting nonwhites.
The US Patriot Act was passed by US Congress. Mineta does not have much to do with it.

[BeTheReds]

Okay but what's the difference between a U.S. National and a U.S. citizen?

[MellowDrama]

Originally posted by BeTheReds@Oct 30 2002, 05:55 PM
Okay but what's the difference between a U.S. National and a U.S. citizen?
A national is a person from one of the American territories - American Samoa, US Virgin Islands, Saipan, etc. (except Puerto Rico). They are somewhere between a citizen and a permanent resident:

"A national of the United States does not have the rights of a citizen of the United States. However, as a national he is accorded certain rights and privileges by reason of being a national which should be at least equal to those of an alien who has been admitted to the United States for permanent residence...

I consider that a national while he does not have the rights of a citizen of the United States has at least the rights of a permanent resident of the United States, and that he has these rights regardless of whether he complies with the usual requirements relating to permanent residence.

In other words, I do not believe that a national of the United States can ever forfeit his right to enter the United States or to be considered as a permanent resident of the United States unless he voluntarily renounces his allegiance to the United States as a national. So long as he retains his status as a national of the United States he should be considered to have the rights of a lawful permanent resident of the United States. " Matter of Ah San 15 I. & N. Dec. 315 (1975)

These seem to be more favorable than the rights of a green card holder (legal permanent resident), because you can lose your permanent residence if you commit a crime (generally), or fail to comply with a number if INS regulations. However, it seems "nationals" are not afforded the same protections as citizens with regards to equal protection. Like in this case of airport screeners, if they were citizens, this would clearly violate their rights as US citizens, but it's probably legally permissable to deny them the jobs because they are "nationals," less than citizens.

[BeTheReds]

Originally posted by MellowDrama@Oct 31 2002, 03:29 AM

A national is a person from one of the American territories
Okay but technically if you are born on US territory aren't you a citizen of the US at birth? People born in GUAM and Samoa aren't citizens?

[MellowDrama]

Originally posted by BeTheReds@Oct 30 2002, 09:33 PM
Originally posted by MellowDrama@Oct 31 2002, 03:29 AM

A national is a person from one of the American territories
Okay but technically if you are born on US territory aren't you a citizen of the US at birth? People born in GUAM and Samoa aren't citizens?
"Nationals" not "citizens."

They can't vote in federal elections, they have no voice in Congress, and there are probably a billion other things for which they are not eligible.

[sandra]

Originally posted by BeTheReds@Oct 30 2002, 04:43 AM
Originally posted by kasia@Oct 30 2002, 04:15 AM
a new act has been passed requiring all airport screeners to be u.s. citizens. &nbsp;this means that all permanent residents and u.s. nationals will lose their jobs
what is the difference between a u.s. national and a u.s. citizen? I thought that there were only citizens and residents.

It is unfortunate that that law has been passed, but with Norm Mineta at the helm of US Transportation, you can't really say that it's the racist white people targeting nonwhites.
he opposed the act.

[sandra]

Originally posted by MellowDrama@Oct 31 2002, 03:35 AM
Originally posted by BeTheReds@Oct 30 2002, 09:33 PM
Originally posted by MellowDrama@Oct 31 2002, 03:29 AM

A national is a person from one of the American territories
Okay but technically if you are born on US territory aren't you a citizen of the US at birth? People born in GUAM and Samoa aren't citizens?
"Nationals" not "citizens."

They can't vote in federal elections, they have no voice in Congress, and there are probably a billion other things for which they are not eligible.
which makes the act even more ironic. i wonder how they're going to find ONLY citizens to staff the airports in these areas. almost all of the locals will lose their jobs. this act is going to be put in full effect in november, but airports have already started laying off non-citizens.

swk: i don't know if they're mostly filipinos, but if you're right--it's hard to say that the act is targeted at only non-citizens and not a minority group.

[MellowDrama]

I'd say SWK is right, especially in airports along the West Coast and Hawaii. It seems most of the people I've encountered were Filipino, but I've also seen a few Chinese. It's actually beneficial, I think, because they can usually process a non-English speaking (Asian) person through the checkpoint by using that person's native language.

[bwc]

three cheers for dual-citizenship! :)

[Arex]

Originally posted by kasia@Oct 30 2002, 11:00 PM
swk: i don't know if they're mostly filipinos, but if you're right--it's hard to say that the act is targeted at only non-citizens and not a minority group.
I disagree. Just because it would seem to have a disproportionate effect on one ethnic group doesn't necessarily mean it was their intent to single out that particular ethnic group. I don't agree with the act either as I don't see how it'll necessarily result in any greater security but I have to say I don't think they were singling out Filipinos when they enacted it...

Alex

[sandra]

Originally posted by Arex@Oct 31 2002, 07:33 AM
Originally posted by kasia@Oct 30 2002, 11:00 PM
swk: &nbsp;i don't know if they're mostly filipinos, but if you're right--it's hard to say that the act is targeted at only non-citizens and not a minority group.
I disagree. Just because it would seem to have a disproportionate effect on one ethnic group doesn't necessarily mean it was their intent to single out that particular ethnic group. I don't agree with the act either as I don't see how it'll necessarily result in any greater security but I have to say I don't think they were singling out Filipinos when they enacted it...

Alex
but what would their purpose be in creating such an act? and would the act really further this purpose? could it be that they are just trying to make a statement--to do something symbolic--so that the public doesn't think that they are just sitting on their asses? could they be acting out of fear and prejudice? and could it be, that in doing this, they are not considering the impact they are having on this minority population? could it be that they don't care?

disproportionate impact does not always result from racism, but it could.