Ashcroft Skates

I was approaching an aide to a Democratic member of the Senate Judiciary Committee, which had minutes earlier completed a three-hour session with Attorney General John Ashcroft, and I was trying to ask a question politely.

"Suck?" the aide said. I nodded. There was no denying it. This much-ballyhooed face-off between Ashcroft and Senate Democrats was more fizzle than sizzle.

The Democrats had called Ashcroft before the committee to discuss the civil liberties implications of various Bush antiterrorism initiatives, most notably military tribunals for suspected terrorists who are not US citizens, the detention of noncitizens and the monitoring of conversations between such suspects and their attorneys. In the past few weeks, Ashcroft and the Administration have received criticism on these fronts, with committee chair Pat Leahy and other members of Congress (though not many) grousing that the White House had decided on these policies without consulting Congress. Thus, this hearing had the makings of a Washington showdown. Dozens of reporters were present. Ted Koppel stood at the back of the SRO committee room in the Dirksen Senate Office Building. Bob Schieffer roamed. Al Sharpton sat silently in the audience. NPR was broadcasting live; the cable networks were present to air live cut-ins. The crowd was anticipating combustion.

Yet the Democrats hardly discomforted the Attorney General. As he defended the Administration's policies, Ashcroft ably diverted or absorbed most of their thrusts. He was rarely placed on the spot. The Democrats' criticism was generally tempered and dispassionate. The most pointed remarks were delivered by Ashcroft and Senator Orrin Hatch, the senior Republican on the committee.

In stern fashion, Hatch warned Democrats not to engage in "aggressive oversight" that "becomes counterproductive" and forces the Justice Department to spend "all its time responding to inquiries from our committee...and none of its time actually tracking down terrorists." With a smile, he quoted from a statement released the day before by Senator Zell Miller, a nominal Democrat from Georgia: "Let Attorney General Ashcroft do his job.... These nitpickers need to find another nit to pick. They need to stop protecting the rights of terrorists."

In his opening statement, Ashcroft unleashed the harshest attack of the day. He blasted his critics, claiming that "their bold declarations of so-called fact have quickly dissolved, upon inspection, into vague conjecture. Charges of 'kangaroo courts' and 'shredding the Constitution' give new meaning to the term 'the fog of war.'" Then he went on to assert that the critics were threats to the nation's security: "To those who scare peace-loving people with phantoms of lost liberty, my message is this: Your tactics only aid terrorists--for they erode our national unity and diminish our resolve. They give ammunition to America's enemies and pause to America's friends. They encourage people of good will to remain silent in the face of evil."

During the hearing, no Democrat challenged Ashcroft's assault upon his critics. Leading off the questioning, Leahy explored, in a legalistic manner, the fine points of Bush's proposed use of military tribunals. Ashcroft explained, as he would repeatedly throughout the day, that the operational details of the tribunals will be drafted by the Defense Department, because Bush established these commissions under his power as Commander in Chief. Which meant, Ashcroft continued, that he and the Justice Department were not in charge of the tribunals. In other words, you got the wrong guy.

Ashcroft refused to be drawn into back-and-forth on the specifics of the tribunal. When Senator John Edwards, one of the few Democrats to pose sharp questions in a skillful way, asked if a person tried by a military tribunal could be sentenced to death on a 2-to-1 vote, Ashcroft attempted to wiggle out of a direct reply, saying that the President's order establishes a "minimum standard." But Edwards pressed the point, noting that the order does allow conviction and execution if two-thirds of the military jury concur. And Ashcroft responded, "Two out of three is two-thirds, I agree with that." He added that UN-sponsored war crimes tribunals allow convictions on a majority vote. They don't permit the death penalty, do they? Edwards shot back. "I don't know," Ashcroft said. Edwards informed the Attorney General the UN tribunals do not.

Little new ground was turned over. Several Democrats did poke at Ashcroft in reference to a New York Times story reporting that the Justice Department had turned down an FBI request to look at computerized gun-purchase records. (The FBI wanted to determine if detained people had bought firearms.) Ashcroft asserted that under law the Justice Department could not provide access to the data. But, as one gun-control lobbyist present later complained, the senators did not understand the issue enough to challenge Ashcroft on this subject. None them were able to force Ashcroft to say whether he thought it would be productive to allow FBI agents to use this data in terrorism investigations. Ashcroft merely said he would be delighted to "review" legislation drafted on this topic. (The NRA would certainly object to that; in fact, Ashcroft's allies in the gun lobby have pushed to destroy these records, and Ashcroft has moved to do so.) Senator Mitch McConnell, a Republican, snickered that Democrats were asking questions about gun control because "the military tribunal argument has already been lost." A Leahy aide said, "It's hard to argue with McConnell on that."

Most of the Republicans were there to help Ashcroft, who, it turns out, needed little assistance. Two, though, did raise civil liberties concerns. Senator Arlen Specter noted that the Administration had established no standards for its detention of immigrants deemed possible terrorist threats. Ashcroft responded that the standard was "if the Attorney General develops the understanding [that releasing such a person]...would jeopardize national security." Specter countered, "What you have said is very generalized." He asked Ashcroft to provide a better answer in writing. Regarding military tribunals, Senator Mike DeWine said, "We have to be concerned about the perception [overseas] of what we are doing." He urged the establishment of clear guidelines for the rules of evidence, clear standards for burden of proof and provisions for reviewing a tribunal's finding.

No problem, said Ashcroft. Overall, the Attorney General--no surprise--made the case that the Bush moves were neither drastic nor draconian. Military tribunals would only handle war crimes cases involving noncitizens, would be conducted openly "when possible" and would be, as the President's order says, "full and fair." Only sixteen detainees have had conversations with their attorneys monitored, and the information obtained would only be used to thwart further acts of terrorism, not in any prosecutions against these people. The detentions were not secret, since those detained were free to tell people (their relatives, the media) of their detention. When questioned by Senator Russ Feingold, Ashcroft agreed to make sure "again" that persons detained would be informed of their right to an attorney and the possibility of pro bono representation. Ashcroft once again argued that privacy restrictions prevented him from releasing the names of detainees, though he could not cite a law establishing these restrictions.

The sharpest barb from a Democrat came when Senator Maria Cantwell was questioning Ashcroft. Hailing from Washington State, she naturally was interested in the Justice Department's attempts to expand its ability to intercept e-mails and Internet communications. "Who should be watching the watchers?" she asked. (Hardly a tough query.) Ashcroft responded by recalling that he had recently seen a cartoon in which a little boy was sitting on the lap of Santa Claus, and Kris Kringle was saying, "I know when you're sleeping; I know when you're awake." The child then says, "Who do you think you are, John Ashcroft?" The Senators and most of the audience and journalists laughed. Yet a frowning Cantwell snapped, "I'm not sure everybody in America is laughing at that." Ashcroft agreed to meet with Congress regularly to review the government's use of its new Internet-snooping powers.

When the gavel fell, Ashcroft's aides were grinning. Not only had he survived a much-touted confrontation with the committee, he had fared well. The headlines could be expected to read, "Ashcroft Defends Bush Policies Before Senate Committee"--which is not a bad day's work for him. (Better than "Democrats Pummel Ashcroft and Force Concessions.") Democratic aides were shrugging shoulders and apologetically explaining to journalists why the hearing had fallen flat.

There appeared to have been little strategic planning on the part of the Democrats. What had they wanted to achieve with this hearing? It was never evident, and their questions didn't follow any game plan. The Democrats did not present much of an argument that Ashcroft and Bush were trampling civil liberties unnecessarily. "The point was to beat up on him," said one Democratic aide. Pause. "But there was not much beating." Other aides noted that the customary five-minute rule--no member could question Ashcroft for more than five minutes--prevented them from digging deep. But, as is also the custom, most senators read questions prepared by staff and were not sufficiently informed to shake the first line of defense from the witness. As yet another Democratic aide says, "these guys are easily intimidated."

Standing in the hallway after the hearing, Leahy refused to take issue with Ashcroft's remarks about critics who aid terrorists by decrying Bush policies. "I didn't understand that from him," Leahy told reporters. Leahy was not hankering for a fight. Around the corner, Feingold was angry about those comments. "The entire Administration," he said, "appears to be trotting out phrases to stop people from talking about these issues.... We have to stand up to that." A reporter observed that during the session there was "not much hit-back" from the Democrats. "Were you satisfied with the hearing?" she inquired. Feingold shifted on his feet and then said, "This is hard work to do--to get up there and talk about the implications of going too far...is hard work to do."

The Democrats did not present much of an argument that Ashcroft and Bush were trampling civil liberties unnecessarily.

That's because there isn't an argument there to make. Hence the main reason the hearings fell flat.

If the Democrats had any real understanding of what this country is supposed to be, they could have given Ashcroft a very hard time.

A member of 1 week says he knows what 'the country is supposed to be' while elected Senators do not. Let us know when *you* get elected to Congress to give Mr. Ashcroft your hard time, if you're not busy doing hard time. LOL!

"When Cantwell got off her punchline, that not all in America was laughing, Ashcroft was certainly not laughing. He was scowling at the implication of the cartoon, that he was some kind of evil, government Big Brother."

I noticed that also.
Cantwell certainly wished to appear as the smart-ax by attempting a ridiculing remark to the AG, but she didn't possess the facilities to demonstrate it. She didn't remotely understand Ashcroft's implication - it whizzed right over her head, proving Ashcroft's genius....
Az

Yeah the Rats figured John Ashcroft would be an easy target for them --- just paint him as a small minded paranoid Edgar J. Hoover and watch all hell break loose. But when the Attorney General waved that Al Qaeda manual around the steam went out of the Rats offensive and suddenly all they wanted to do was make the hearing go away even to the extent of changing it to their favorite issue gun control. You can always count on the Rats to blow themselves up on a land mine. They're like the Taliban in the sense that they don't know how to conduct themselves in the face of a determined foe and they sure couldn't handle Ashcroft. Next time they'll make sure not to tangle with him again.

Goes to show you though who the real terrorists are.

We note that a member of 1 day calls the people's self-governance 'terrorists.' Go slither back into the ideologue cave, Omar.

Yet a frowning Cantwell snapped, "I'm not sure everybody in America is laughing at that."

I am laughing at the "I-bought-my-seat" Senator.

It appears that Ashcroft has gravitas.

Is that what those are called? Must be the Latin word for them.

I'm grinning from ear to ear now :-)

I was listening to a sound bite on NPR radio and it so pissed me off (my humble apologies to Freepers here) to hear their unabashed leftist diatribe
Anyways, I was saying that I am very pleased how Ashcroft powerfully shredded his enemies and defended the administration's effort on fighting terrorism.

IMHO the DEMs are finding life so unbearable and are grasping at the 'civil liberties' issue as ammo to tear down Bush's overall popularity ratings.

"...with committee chair Pat Leahy and other members of Congress (though not many) grousing that the White House had decided on these policies without consulting Congress."

This is the real agenda. Leahy was left out of the loop. The administration does not recognize the pedestal Leahy seems to think he occupies.

Goes to show you though who the real terrorists are.

Lame, pathetic attempt to make your point. I dislike the IRS as much as anyone here - but calling them terrorists is like the abuse of the word Nazi for anyone you disagree with - it cheapens the horrific meaning of that term.

...but calling them terrorists is like the abuse of the word Nazi for anyone you disagree with - it cheapens the horrific meaning of that term.

Most worthy of a repeat. Evildoers do see law as a terror, making them tremble in fear that their evil deeds will be punished here on earth.

"To those who scare peace-loving people with phantoms of lost liberty, my message is this: Your tactics only aid terrorists--for they erode our national unity and diminish our resolve. They give ammunition to America's enemies and pause to America's friends. They encourage people of good will to remain silent in the face of evil."

Good for Ashcroft. This should be on every Republican ad.

John Ashcroft is a good man...humble, honest, and very smart to boot...O that we had thousands like him in DC, instead of a mere handful.

He also knows the RAT pack well, having watched their petty tactics for years as a member of the Club himself.

They didn't lay a glove on him, which doesn't surprise me one bit.

The difference between Bush/Ashcroft and the Clinton/Reno Gang could not be more striking...thank God.

I am laughing at the "I-bought-my-seat" Senator.

My sympathies. We have ambulance-chasing-Ted-Kennedy2 Johnny Edwards here who has White House ambitions.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.