veiled4allah: you tell 'em, Judge Keith!

I was reading the decision of the U.S Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit, in Detroit Free Press v. Ashcroft, written by Judge Damon J. Keith. This case deals with whether the government has the right to close all "special interest" deportation hearings to the public (the "special interest" designation means that the deportee is suspected of having some connection to terrorism). The court found that the government's action was unconstitutional. Some quotes I particularly liked were:

...The Executive Branch seeks [here] to uproot people's lives, outside the public eye, and behind a closed door. Democracies die behind closed doors. The First Amendment, through a free press, protects the people's right to know that their government acts fairly, lawfully, and accurately in deportation proceedings. When government begins closing doors, it selectively controls information rightly belonging to the people. Selective information is misinformation. The Framers of the First Amendment "did not trust any government to separate the true from the false for us"... ...This contention [by the Government] strikes us as profoundly undemocratic in that it ignores the basic concept of checks and balances. More fundamentally, though, were the political branches' decisions not subject to certain basic procedural requirements, the government could act arbitrarily and behind closed doors, leaivng unsettled the lives of thousands of immigrants. Even though the political branches may have unfettered discretion to deport and exclude certain people, requiring the Government to account for their choices assures an informed public -- a foundational principle of democracy...

...Furthermore, there seems to be no limit to the government's argument [for closing deportation hearings]. The Government could use its "mosaic intelligence" argument as a justification to close any public hearing completely and categorically, including criminal proceedings. The Government could operate in virtual secrecy in all matters dealing, even remotely, with "national security," resulting in a wholesale suspension of First Amendment rights. By the simple assertion of "national security," the Government seeks a process where it may, without review, designate certain classes of cases as "special interest cases" and, behind closed doors, adjudicate the mertis of these cases to deprive non-citizens of their fundamental liberty interests. This we simply may not countenance. A government operating in the shadow of secrecy stands in complete opposition to the society envisioned by the Framers of our Constitution...

...A true democracy is one that operates on faith - faith that government officials are forthcoming and honest, and faith that informed citizens will arrive at logical conclusions. this is a vital reciprocity that America should not discard in these troubling times. Without question, the events of September 11, 2001, left an indelible mark on our nation, but we as a people are united in the wake of the destruction to demonstrate to the world that we are a country deeply committed to preserving the rights and freedoms guaranteed by our democracy. Today, we reflect our commitment to those democratic values by ensuring that our government is held accountable to the people and that First Amendment rights are not impermissibly compromised. Open proceedings, with a vigorous and scrutinizing press, serve to ensure the durability of our democracy.

There are some other interesting things in the decision as well. For instance, one of the cases cited by the Government to support its right to determine who is to be excluded from entering the U.S. contains the following passage: "The presence of Chinese laborers had a baneful effect upon the material interests of the State, and upon public morals; that their immigration was in numbers approaching the character of an Oriental invasion, and was a menace to our civilization"