FUJIMORI'S FALSIFICATIONS AND HARASSMENT OF PERUVIANS ABROAD

Rubyg580 at aol.com Rubyg580 at aol.com
Sat Jun 8 08:40:26 MDT 1996


In a message dated 96-06-07 Adolfo writes:

 > Mr. Salazar Calero has a number of
>legal avenues open to him, and the main one, as already stated by his
>lawyers, is to prove that he has been residing in the US before the date of
>the alleged incident the Fujimori regime is trying to pin on him.
>
>This will only require some witnesses in court to debunk such a preposterous
>accussation as that fabricated by the Fujimori police. We see no immediate
>danger to Mr. Salazar Calero under the present legal framework in the USA,
>nor many obvious indications that such a framework would be changed within
>the next 60 days.  We have no doubt that Mr. Salazar will count with
>competent legal defence.
>>>>>>
>In our opinion, what must be emphasised is the demand for immediate freedom
>for this Peruvian citizen.  That too is a question for his lawyers and the
>support of Civil Liberties organisations and the community at large.

I'm glad Father Adolfo has such undying faith in the "present legal
framework in the USA", i.e., the Yankee imperialists' criminal justice
system.  This is a description of that "present legal framework," as
embodied in the applicable sections of the new "anti-terrorist" law
recently signed by "Slick Willy" clinton.(see especially point 3):
Gina/Detroit

>From: Professor Ralph Brill <rbrill at kentlaw.edu>
>To: Multiple recipients of list <firearmsreg at ssiinc.com>
>
> 2.  The Act trashes our system of reviewing asylum claims by
refugees fleeing racial, religious, political, gender-based, and other
forms of persecution in foreign countries.  An arbitrary 30-day limit
>from entry into the U.S. is imposed for filing the detailed applications
required by law with all their supporting documentary evidence.  Few
refugees are able to even get on their feet or learn about the asylum
system within 30 days, much less find the scarce pro bono legal help
necessary to raise a meaningful claim.  As an attorney who has
handled such pro bono cases I know what I'm talking about.

 This mean-spirited provision will summarily
 foreclose thousands of meritorious claims, resulting in people being
 deported to face death, torture, female genital mutilation, and other
 horrors.  Even worse, people arriving at U.S. borders without proper
 documents will be denied the chance to even raise a meaningful
asylum claim, as guaranteed by international law and solemn U.S.
 treaty commitments.  The Act allows low-level INS flunkies, with
NO judicial review, to summarily deny asylum claims (assuming
the refugee even knows enough to artfully state such a claim) and
pack away on the next flight any refugee without papers in proper
order (imagine fleeing Liberia or Rwanda and having to get papers
in proper order).

 3.  Still more.  The Act revives a procedure unknown since the
infamous Star Chamber of 17th-century Britain:  trying people without
giving them the chance to see or review the evidence against them.
Permanent legal residents of the U.S. who may have served in our
military, married, had citizen children, and lived here for 50 years,
may be accused of "terrorist" activities, hailed before a tribunal and
deported without ever being given the "classified" evidence against
them.  Oh, they may be given a "summary" of the evidence--how
enerous.  This provision, one hopes, may be struck down as the
flagrantly unconstitutional trashing of due process that it is.

 4.  Reviving the McCarthy era practice of excluding foreigners
belonging to unpopular political groups, the Act allows executive
branch cabinet officials, with only limited congressional or judicial
oversight, to brand any organization as "terrorist" and thereby
exclude any person associated with the group from entry into the
U.S., without any proof that the individual supports or is even aware
of any alleged "terrorist" activities by the group.

 Fundraising or contributions to any such group, even by
 U.S. citizens within the U.S., is criminalized, again without any
proof of intent to support violence or even knowledge of alleged
"terrorist" acts. This provision might well have been applied, in
previous years, to groups like Nelson Mandela's African National
Congress.  Would political officials apply it to violent foreign groups
like the former Nicaraguan contras, who might enjoy the favor of
the Administration of the day?  I doubt it.  It amounts to an
international ideological "enemies list."




     --- from list marxism at lists.village.virginia.edu ---




More information about the Marxism mailing list