U.S. Counters 'Dirty Bomber' Civil Liberty Critics

Reuters / ABC ^

[RCW2001]

(Reuters Photo)

U.S. Counters 'Dirty Bomber' Civil Liberty Critics

June 11 — BUDAPEST (Reuters) - The United States Tuesday countered criticism from civil liberties groups over the way it was treating a suspected al Qaeda operative, alleged to have been plotting a radioactive "dirty bomb" attack against the U.S. Attorney General John Ashcroft told a news conference in Hungary's capital that it was the "terrorists" who threatened civil liberties, not the international coalition set up to combat the threat in the wake of the Sept. 11 attacks on New York and Washington. "The fight against terrorism is a fight to secure civil liberties. Security secures something and what we're securing is freedom," Ashcroft said after talks with Hungary's new center-left government on efforts to combat the threat of international terrorism. "It is the terrorist who threatens liberty, freedom, equality, human dignity and even the existence of humanity," he said. U.S. civil liberties groups Monday hit out at the way Abdullah al Muhajir, an American suspected of having links to al Qaeda -- the group the U.S. blames for last year's hijacked plane attacks which killed more than 3,000 people -- had been stripped of some of his legal rights. Al Muhajir is being held by the Defense Department as an "enemy combatant" after U.S. authorities said they foiled a plot to attack targets, possibly in Washington, with a so-called "dirty bomb" packed with radioactive material. This method of detention allows him to be questioned without him having a lawyer present. The American Civil Liberties Union has insisted he should be tried in a U.S. court and not at any military tribunal. No decision has yet been taken on where or when he will be tried, or what charges he may face. "Our effort is not to impair civil liberties but to save them," Ashcroft said. He said the United States had to think along new lines as it switched from prosecuting alleged terrorism to preventing it. "We can think outside the box, but we can never think outside the constitution and, in the U.S., the constitution defines the important civil liberties and guarantees that no governmental action can infringe those liberties," he said. "Nothing that we have done in any way infringes the civil liberties which we think are extremely important. "Frankly, we are seeking to defend liberty. That's why we have such an aggressive fight against terrorism," Ashcroft said.

[Dan from Michigan]

Should have just shot him instead.

[goldstategop]

The ACLU are idiots. This terrorist should been gunned down and left to rot where he was found. Which is good enough for this American.

[Lazamataz]

Ashcroft is acting idiotically. This terrorist is an American citizen and must be tried within the laws of our system, unless he has renounced citizenship explicitly.

We are likely to be able to nail this guy and still stay all legal-like. But this 'below the law' stuff is ludicrious.

[Lazamataz]

The ACLU are idiots. This terrorist should been gunned down and left to rot where he was found.

Folks, I thought like this at first. It is a knee-jerk reaction. Remember, tomorrow -- when Hillary is in office -- we will be branded terrorists for advocating government accountability.

He is an traitorous American citizen. Treat him as one. Prosecute him by the book. Never let anger interfere with justice.

[ClancyJ]

Here we go again. The enemies among us are fighting us with our own civil liberties to allow their terrorists to destroy us. Has anyone checked to see if the ACLU has contributions from terrorist supporters?

Looks like the ACLU has become the agency to use to take away our civil liberties. The ACLU seeks to take away the liberty to defend ourselves against terrorists among our citizens that chose to kill other American citizens. The ACLU seeks to take God out of American life. The ACLU seeks to take away any freedom of expression in our schools.

[Dan from Michigan]

You're right.

I would have shot him personally, but then again, I'm not the feds.

[Lazamataz]

I would have shot him personally, but then again, I'm not the feds.

It would have taken great restraint on any person's part.

[Deathmonger]

"Nothing that we have done in any way infringes the civil liberties which we think are extremely important.

I like Ashcroft, but he has a way of making scary quotes like this. The US govt does not get to determine willy-nilly which liberties are extremely important and which are not at its own convenience, even in this supposed war. It is Orwellian to argue that the only way to save liberty is to eliminate it.

As a US citizen, he should be tried for treason, just like traitors in the past. We are supposed to be better than countries that can detain people indefinitely without trial.

[Hoosier Patriot]

He is an traitorous American citizen. Treat him as one. Prosecute him by the book. Never let anger interfere with justice.

Well said. And this must be repeated:

Remember, tomorrow -- when Hillary is in office -- we will be branded terrorists for advocating government accountability.

Todays watchful, caring citizen may well turn out to be tommorrows enemy of the state. Vigilance is required in many, many areas.

[Lazamataz]

As a US citizen, he should be tried for treason, just like traitors in the past. We are supposed to be better than countries that can detain people indefinitely without trial.

I believe Ashcroft is acting as knee-jerk as many of the people who post here -- for very understandable human and emotional reasons. It is important that we all put the pressure on our administration to play by the rules. If it requires that we join with the ACLU on this particular topic, so be it.

[MEGoody]

In reality, this is not 'below the law' stuff. The actions that have been taken against Jose (I refuse to use his rag-head name) are perfectly legal. While I would agree that Jose should be tried in a regular court (after all Mossaui is), the press should not be permitted to be present, and the jurors should have to sign a non-disclosure agreement. It's pretty much guaranteed that some information on spy methods, et al will be revealed during the trial. This information has to be protected.

[Destructor]

'Bout time somebody in this administration told the bleeding heart Liberals how the cow ate the cabbage!

[MEGoody]

"Nothing that we have done in any way infringes the civil liberties which we think are extremely important."

Read that statement again. It seems to me that Ashcroft is not saying (or even implying) that some civil liberties are more important than others. He is saying civil liberties are important.

[goldstategop]

I tend to be extreme when it comes to barbarians. Which is who terrorists are - hostili generis humanis . The ancient Romans knew barbarians when they saw one and they weren't afflicted by our decadent softness in dealing with them. Terrorists are like cancer; they can kill the patient if its allowed to spread, so they need to be throughly rooted to make sure civilization survives. Yeah shooting first and asking questions later is the rule we ought to follow here with them and their ilk.

[Lazamataz]

In reality, this is not 'below the law' stuff. The actions that have been taken against Jose (I refuse to use his rag-head name) are perfectly legal.

I disagree. The present attempt to try him as a non-citizen is illegal and undesirable. Furthermore, they are attempting to hold him indefinately without charging him. The President can suspend Habeus Corpus but I am not aware that he has done so. Therefore, they must charge him (my preferred outcome) or release him (my most disliked option)

While I would agree that Jose should be tried in a regular court (after all Mossaui is), the press should not be permitted to be present, and the jurors should have to sign a non-disclosure agreement. It's pretty much guaranteed that some information on spy methods, et al will be revealed during the trial. This information has to be protected.

I agree with all this

[concerned about politics]

Tell them to take another Prozack and lay down. We'll handle this.

[Ben Hecks]

Even Jonathan Turley, who usually displays some measure of intelligence, is having a problem distinguishing between an act of war and a convenience store holdup. Imagine if we had tried all POWs captured in WWII in a civil court - the number of lawyers required to prosecute and defend all the cases would have been staggering.

[concerned about politics]

. This terrorist is an American citizen and must be tried within the laws of our system, unless he has renounced citizenship explicitly.

I understood the law to say that if an American citizen aids the enemy during war, they volentarily lose their citizenship.

[callisto]

Ashcroft is acting idiotically. This terrorist is an American citizen and must be tried within the laws of our system, unless he has renounced citizenship explicitly.

We are likely to be able to nail this guy and still stay all legal-like. But this 'below the law' stuff is ludicrious.

Isn't there a law/rule/stipulation/whatever about a US citizen joining with an enemy of the US to commit an attack on the US as automatically being considered to have relinquished their citizenship? I'll have to look this one up and post it, but I believe Ashcroft may be in the right here.