Using Immigration Law to Prosecute Terrorism Charges: Double Jeopardy or Fair Play?

You may also like...

2 Responses

  1. wm. tyroler says:

    How is the situation described in the post any different from an acquittal not barring a subsequent revocation of (parole, probation, or comparable supervision) at an administrative hearing? It’s settled that there’s no DJ bar in that latter setting, and I can’t see, at first glance anyway, why there isn’t a decent analogy to be made to deportation proceedings.

  2. Matt Lister says:

    It seems to me that one of the real problems in this area is the use of secret evidence. Obviously this sometimes a problem in contexts other than immigration court when we are dealing with terrorism charges, but my impression is that secret evidence is _used_ more in immigration court, or at least has been. In the past, in some of the most famous cases, it seems that what was so secret about the evidence was that there was none. Obviously insofar as secret evidence (or “evidence”) is used to deport people there is a pretty serious worry about injustice being done. Since Jaya is something of an expert on this topic (and I’m not!) I hope she’ll post something on it soon.