More proof of the jackassery of Ashcroft

[Guest Frank Zappa Mask]

Camps for Citizens: Ashcroft's Hellish Vision

Attorney general shows himself as a menace to liberty.

 

By Jonathan Turley

http://educate-yourself.org/ashcroftsbetra...cle14aug02.html

August 14, 2002

 

Los Angeles Times

 

Atty. Gen. John Ashcroft's announced desire for camps for U.S. citizens he deems to be "enemy combatants" has moved him from merely being a political embarrassment to being a constitutional menace.

 

Ashcroft's plan, disclosed last week but little publicized, would allow him to order the indefinite incarceration of U.S. citizens and summarily strip them of their constitutional rights and access to the courts by declaring them enemy combatants.

 

The proposed camp plan should trigger immediate congressional hearings and reconsideration of Ashcroft's fitness for this important office. Whereas Al Qaeda is a threat to the lives of our citizens, Ashcroft has become clear and present threat to our liberties.

 

The camp plan was forged at an optimistic time for Ashcroft's small inner circle, which has been carefully watching two test cases to see whether this vision could become a reality. The cases of Jose Padilla and Yaser Esam Hamdi will determine whether U.S. citizens can be held without charges and subject to the arbitrary and unchecked authority of the government.

 

Hamdi has been held without charge even though the facts of his case are virtually identical to those in the case of John Walker Lindh. Both Hamdi and Lindh were captured in Afghanistan as foot soldiers in Taliban units. Yet Lindh was given a lawyer and a trial, while Hamdi rots in a floating Navy brig in Norfolk, Va.

 

This week, the government refused to comply with a federal judge who ordered that he be given the underlying evidence justifying Hamdi's treatment. The Justice Department has insisted that the judge must simply accept its

declaration and cannot interfere with the president's absolute authority in "a time of war."

 

In Padilla's case, Ashcroft initially claimed that the arrest stopped a plan to detonate a radioactive bomb in New York or Washington, D.C. The administration later issued an embarrassing correction that there was no evidence Padilla was on such a mission. What is clear is that Padilla is an American citizen and was arrested in the United States--two facts that should trigger the full application of constitutional rights.

 

Ashcroft hopes to use his self-made "enemy combatant" stamp for any citizen whom he deems to be part of a wider terrorist conspiracy.

 

Perhaps because of his discredited claims of preventing radiological terrorism, aides have indicated that a "high-level committee" will recommend which citizens are to be stripped of their constitutional rights and sent

to Ashcroft's new camps.

 

Few would have imagined any attorney general seeking to reestablish such camps for citizens. Of course, Ashcroft is not considering camps on the order of the internment camps used to incarcerate Japanese American citizens in World War II. But he can be credited only with thinking smaller; we have learned from painful experience that unchecked authority, once tasted, easily becomes insatiable.

 

We are only now getting a full vision of Ashcroft's America. Some of his predecessors dreamed of creating a great society or a nation unfettered by racism. Ashcroft seems to dream of a country secured from itself, neatly contained and controlled by his judgment of loyalty.

 

For more than 200 years, security and liberty have been viewed as coexistent values. Ashcroft and his aides appear to view this relationship as lineal, where security must precede liberty.

 

Since the nation will never be entirely safe from terrorism, liberty has become a mere rhetorical justification for increased security.

 

Ashcroft is a catalyst for constitutional devolution, encouraging citizens to accept autocratic rule as their only way of avoiding massive terrorist attacks.

 

His greatest problem has been preserving a level of panic and fear that would induce a free people to surrender the rights so dearly won by their ancestors.

 

In "A Man for All Seasons," Sir Thomas More was confronted by a young lawyer, Will Roper, who sought his daughter's hand. Roper proclaimed that he would cut down every law in England to get after the devil.

 

More's response seems almost tailored for Ashcroft: "And when the last law was down and the devil turned round on you, where would you hide, Roper, the laws all being flat? ... This country's planted thick with laws from coast to coast ... and if you cut them down--and you are just the man to do it--do you really think you could stand upright in the winds that would blow then?"

 

Every generation has had Ropers and Ashcrofts who view our laws and traditions as mere obstructions rather than protections in times of peril. But before we allow Ashcroft to denude our own constitutional landscape, we must take a stand and have the courage to say, "Enough."

 

Every generation has its test of principle in which people of good faith can no longer remain silent in the face of authoritarian ambition. If we cannotjoin together to fight the abomination of American camps, we have already

lost what we are defending.

 

Jonathan Turley is a professor of constitutional law at George Washington University.

http://www.truthout.org/docs_02/08.15B.ashcr.camps.htm

[Guest Vern Gagne]

Just strip these two guys of their citizenship, end of discussion. No matter how small a role they played they where fighting or conspiring against the U.S.

 

Does anyone have any un-biased reports. Turley's a professor for god sakes.He's a fricking socialist.

[Guest danielisthor]

Just strip these two guys of their citizenship, end of discussion. No matter how small a role they played they where fighting or conspiring against the U.S.

 

Does anyone have any un-biased reports. Turley's a professor for god sakes.He's a fricking socialist.

have to agree with both of those statements.

 

As far as Ashcroft being an imbarresment, he's got nothing on Janet Reno.

[Guest MarvinisaLunatic]

Hmm..

 

It wont be long now before saying something bad about Dubbya lands ya in the pokey.

 

They might as well take the consitution and use it for toilet paper, they've seemingly got this idea that the consitution doesn't count any more.

[Guest Kid Kablam]

This week, the government refused to comply with a federal judge who ordered that he be given the underlying evidence justifying Hamdi's treatment. The Justice Department has insisted that the judge must simply accept its

declaration and cannot interfere with the president's absolute authority in "a time of war."

 

Can you say Sedition Acts? God this guys turning into a second fucking McCarthy

[Guest DrTom]

Can you say Sedition Acts? God this guys turning into a second fucking McCarthy

I've been saying that since he was appointed to his position. A while back, Asscroft basically labeled anyone who criticizes the country and its government a terrorist. He's brought back the Sedition Act, for all intents and purposes, and I wonder if its historical companion, the Alien Act, won't be far behind.

 

Restating my position on Ashcroft: despite my overwhelming support for President Bush and the job he has done, I will NOT vote to re-elect him in 2004 if Ashcroft is still the Attorney General.

[Guest Some Guy]

I'm not a huge fan of Ashcroft, but he hasn't done too bad of a job. Keep inmind that he came in to massive media scorn and then had 9/11 to deal with just 9 months later. It's a tough position to be in. I doubt Bush will bring him back, because no one seems to really like him.

[Guest DrTom]

I certainly hope Bush doesn't bring him back, since I'd love to re-elect the man. If there are assurances that Asscroft will not be appointed to a second term, then Bush will get my vote. The dickhead was only appointed to appease the religious right, anyway, and Bush no longer needs their support.

[Guest NoCalMike]

Ashcroft needs to go....NOW

[Guest Ozymandias]

Does anyone have any un-biased reports.

Sorry, there's no such thing anymore. Either it's the Republican-controlled news media or the fringe Left-Wing alternative press. All you can do is read both with a pound of salt and you should figure out the real story on your own.

[Guest danielisthor]

Does anyone have any un-biased reports.

Sorry, there's no such thing anymore. Either it's the Republican-controlled news media or the fringe Left-Wing alternative press. All you can do is read both with a pound of salt and you should figure out the real story on your own.

unless your watching Fox news, most of the TV news is liberal biased. NBC, CBS, ABC, CNN, MSNBC all lean heavily to the left. Fox leans heavily to the right.

[Guest Some Guy]

The dickhead was only appointed to appease the religious right, anyway, and Bush no longer needs their support.

 

Dan I wouldn't say that any of those channels lean "heavily" to one side or the other PMSNBC (Donuhue) excluded, CNN and the networks do lean further to the left than they should and Fox is more right of center but none are extremist.

I have little problem with the cable channels, but I do haev a big problem with the networks because they have a bigger and more influenial audience.

Tom I think he does need their supposrt but he doesn't need to use the Attorney General's office to garner it. He could re-appoint Aschroft to a lesser position and find a more moderate AG for his 2nd term.

[Guest Ozymandias]

There's nothing even remotely liberal abut CNN, NBC, ABC, CBS, et al...

 

It's all just a smoke-screen to draw attention away from the fact that all those "news" outlets are owned, operated, and controlled by multi-national billion-dollar conservative buisness interests. Really, all they can do is just scream "Liberal media! Liberal media!!" and hope people believe it. They'd clearly much rather have people falsely think that they are liberal-biased than realize that they're really conservative-controlled.

[Guest Some Guy]

Ted Turner founded CNN, you think he's a Conservative? He married "Hanoi" Jane Fonda for Christ's sake.

I think you should drop out of Oliver Stone Conspirisy School and think more before you write. That migth be the silliest arguement against teh liberal media I've ever heard.

[Guest Ozymandias]

CNN isn't owned by Ted Turner, it's owned by Time-Warner, a multi-national billion-dollar conservative buisness interest. The fact that you would base who someone falls in love with (??!!!) to be representative of a media-wide political bias just proves how fucking pathetic the "Liberal media" argument is.

 

How is it a "conspiracy" theory? So you're saying that our media ISN'T owned, operated and controlled by corporations?

 

Ok, fine....

 

NBC, CNBC: General Electric - A multi-national, billion-dollar conservative buisness interest

CBS: Viacom - A multi-national, billion-dollar conservative buisness interest

ABC: Disney - A multi-national, billion-dollar conservative buisness interest

CNN, Headline News: Time-Warner - A multi-national, billion-dollar conservative buisness interest

MSNBC: Microsoft; General Electric- TWO multi-national, billion-dollar conservative buisness interests

 

 

Enlighten me, WHAT THE FUCK IS SO LIBERAL ABOUT THAT?

 

 

You should really know what you're talking about before you try and insult another's rhetoric.

 

Just turn around and start walkin', buddy.

[Guest Some Guy]

I said CNN was FOUNDED by Ted Turner. Also any true conservative would spit on Jane Fonda's shoes for what she did during Vietman, not marry her.

 

Here are the anchors from those channels.

NBC: Tom Brokaw, a liberal

CBS: Dan Rather, a liberal

ABC: Peter Jennings, liberal

CNN: Larry King, Connie Chung, both liberals

PMSNBC: Phil Donahue, a communist

 

No, no leftist leanings there.

[Guest Ozymandias]

Who cares about who "founded" CNN, what bearing does that have on the channel now if Turner has no control over it anymore?

 

Turner y Fonda: One of Clinton's top stooges met and married one of Bush's top stoogettes in 1992, so no, it DOESN'T matter what someone's political beliefs are when it comes to matters like this.

 

News anchors don't write or gather the news, they READ FROM TELEPROMPTERS - a monkey could do that. Who gives a shit what an anchor's personal political beliefs are when that can't possibly have a reflection on the news?

 

Plus, what makes you think they ARE liberal? That's just your interperatation of them in comparison to mindless GOP clowns like Bill O'Reilly and Rush Limbaugh.

 

I certainly hope you don't REALLY believe that what you percieve to be the political leanings of a handful of anchors (the least powerful people in the news media) to actually matter in comparison to who OWNS AND OPERATES the networks.

[Guest Some Guy]

The anchors have a lot of stroke in terms of how they do the news and how it is presented to them. The people who prepare the broadcasts are about 90% Democrats so that definately ahs a bearing on how they percieve things and then report it.

[Guest DrTom]

News anchors don't write or gather the news, they READ FROM TELEPROMPTERS

News anchors write the majority of what they say on the air. They cull the story from wire reports and then turn into something to be read off the teleprompter.

 

Large corporations are not necessarily conservative. News channels being owned by those corporations does not necessarily make those news channels conservative. In 1992, almost 90% of the press voted Democrat in national elections. How does that not constitute a bias toward the left?

[Guest danielisthor]

and lets not forget that Rather took a lot of heat last year or the year before for SPEAKING at a DEMOCRATIC CONVENTION.

[Guest bob_barron]

Who cares about who "founded" CNN, what bearing does that have on the channel now if Turner has no control over it anymore?

 

Turner y Fonda: One of Clinton's top stooges met and married one of Bush's top stoogettes in 1992, so no, it DOESN'T matter what someone's political beliefs are when it comes to matters like this.

 

News anchors don't write or gather the news, they READ FROM TELEPROMPTERS - a monkey could do that. Who gives a shit what an anchor's personal political beliefs are when that can't possibly have a reflection on the news?

 

Plus, what makes you think they ARE liberal? That's just your interperatation of them in comparison to mindless GOP clowns like Bill O'Reilly and Rush Limbaugh.

 

I certainly hope you don't REALLY believe that what you percieve to be the political leanings of a handful of anchors (the least powerful people in the news media) to actually matter in comparison to who OWNS AND OPERATES the networks.

Bill O'Reilly is independent not a conservative

[Guest meanmaisch]

O'Reilly may be independent when it comes to political alleginaces and voting, but he still is conservative in nature.

[Guest bob_barron]

He attacks Bush a lot on his show so he isn't that conservative

[Guest Some Guy]

O'Reilly is Independent with mostly Right leanings. He is also a bit arrogant and annoying, success really went to his head.