Muslim Legal Woes of Varying Degree

When I first set out today to write a post, I wanted to write about this story: U.S. Muslims Fight Halal Meat Scam. ***Warning, this link directs you to Al-Jazeera English News page, so if you aren't yet being monitored by the NSA and don't want to be, maybe you don't want to click on it, lol***

Of course, half way through my post, I lost the wireless connection at school and my writing disappeared into an electronic vortex. Basically the article is proof of the fact that con artists can penetrate any aspect of our lives, as more and more American Muslims are learning that the meat that they buy from so-called halal markets is not actually halal. This is truly disappointing, especially as I would say that the halal market is almost completely controlled by people claiming to Muslims. Therefore, we are getting scammed by our own.

Interesting aspect is that the article mentions several pieces of legislation that have been proposed by various states to provide for a certification process for vendors of foods offered in compliance with religious laws (I guess Kosher and Halal, not sure what other ones are out there?) And then goes on to say that this may violate separation of church and state under the U.S. constitution if the state becomes involved. I don't really see how that is an issue, because this seems like a simple case of false marketing/deceptive advertising, which can be dealt with under laws already in place, either by the government or private parties. Although maybe Muslims are reluctant to sue their halal butchers?

On a more serious note, this topic has been popping up in quite a few forums: Internment Camps for Muslims? . Wayfarer brought it up first on her blog, and I thought I would give my "prediction" for what could actually happen, based on my deep knowledge of constitutional law obtained through my one semester course, although it was with the eminent Professor John Witte, which was one of the most challenging clases I have taken, as well as my worst grade in law school so far (which still wasn't that bad, but I'm not telling...)

Ok, so for those of you who remember your history, the U.S. already put the Japanese in internment camps during WWII. A case was actually brought to the Supreme Court contesting this as a violation of due process and equal protection. In Korematsu, the Supreme Court upheld the government's use of their "police power" to protect the country in a time of crisis. The issue here was that the program has to be "narrowly tailored" enough to meet the government's goal.

Korematsu has gone down in history with cases such as Dred Scott (upholding the legality of slavery) and Plessy (upholding the legality of segragation), as being a notoriously unjust ruling. However, unlike Dred Scott and Plessy, Korematsu has never been overruled. This means that in another time of war, it is still legal under Supreme Court jurisprudence to place people of certain nationalities in internment camps, provided that the government can prove that they pose a threat to the safety of the nation.

Additionaly my professor put this hypothetical to us, which was put to him and other professors at a think tank called by John Ashcroft following 9/11.
Hypo (taken directly from my class notes):
What if dirty bomb was dropped on Atlanta by Zarquawi and his followers. He then declares that Iraq has struck the U.S. and credits Iraqi terror cells located in America with a victory. Could we round up every Iraqi- American citizen or subject and put them in an internment camp? (This was Ashcroft’s hypothetical).

The answer is Yes!!!!!

Now, what do I think realistically can be done under a ruling like Korematsu.

- Could people of certain nationalities or ethnicities be placed internment camps? Probably

- Could all Muslims be placed in internment camps? Probably not. Why? Because this characterization is too broad to meet constitutional challenges for the narrow tailoring requirement (mentioned above).

- What would be the most likely scenario? All people of certain nationalities (predominantly Muslim countries) residing in the U.S. who do not have citizenship could be rounded up, placed in camps, and eventually deported. Although, who knows who long that could take? In more extreme situations, naturalized citizens could be stripped of their citizenship and deported as well (this happened quite a bit during the McCarthy Era, and I wrote a paper about it, if you are interested in that too, let me know).

Just my viewpoint on the legal actualities of what could happen, but insha'Allah none of this will never, ever happen.

Sorry if the stuff above is too technical, or I dissolved into "lawyer talk." If I didn't make something clear, please let me know and I will try to explain it better.