Camps for Citizens: Ashcroft's Hellish Vision

Los Angeles Times ^ | Aug. 14, 2002 | Jonathan Turley

[JohnathanRGalt]

Camps for Citizens: Ashcroft's Hellish Vision

Attorney general shows himself as a menace to liberty.

by JONATHAN TURLEY, Jonathan Turley is a professor of constitutional law at George Washington University.

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 a clear and present threat to our liberties.

(. . . .)

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.

[jedwardtremlett]

My thoughts exactly, only I'm not going to play one side against the other. Presidents are individuals, and I could see one Administation in the future deciding to create or exploit an emergency to get some pesky voices silenced.

Imagine J Edgar "cointelpro" Hoover as a post-911 President.

J

[Sandy]

Thank you for that link. How utterly revolting. I've read enough about the ww2 camps, but the photos really drive it home. Creeeeepy.

[fogarty]

"...keep an eye out for the Enemy. He is not US."

What you forget is that an 'enemy' can be defined to whatever the ruling, er, elected administration happens to want it to be.

I have no doubt that an 'enemy of the state' in the eyes of a second clinton administration would include pro-life protestors, gun-owners, and any church that preaches homosexuality is a sin.

And here is the ultimate irony - the very tools a Republican administration has put into being will be the very shackles a future administration will use to their advantage and continue shredding the US Constitution.

[Sandy]

Atty. Gen. John Ashcroft's announced desire for camps for U.S. citizens he deems to be "enemy combatants"

Where/when was this "desire" announced, and what are the specifics? A link would be helpful.

[hoosierham]

"221 adults spent their last day on earth behind the wires"

Here is the most chilling part ; and NONE of those people were convicted of a crime or of taking arms against their new country.

All you self-titled "patriots" are no better than the Germans who shouted "Heil" because it was there country ; nor can I respect persons who shout "America -love it or leave it"

If you TRULY love America , the land of the free and home of the brave, you do not blindly follow , you do not desire your fellow citizens be deprived of their rights without a fair trial.An act of barbarity by an enemy is no reason to punish your fellow citizens, Giving ONE or a FEW persons the power to simply declare a person outside the protections of our constitution is the height of folly.

On the other hand, immediate detention followed by swift deportation for those here illegally could go a long way towards making the nation more free, more safe , and better economically by removal of social service parasites. Vincente Fox is miffed over the execution of a Mexican national convicted of murder ; let's give him back a couple million of his "undocumented workers" and let him deal with them. Likewise deport all the other illegals. No one's rights need be violated in doing this simple, obvious step.

[neutrino]

Clearly, you don't like the idea of the camps.

Very well. Let's suppose that we can make the rules. Please tell me how (how, exactly) we are to deal with the problem?

Full blown trials against determined terrorists will be problematic. What does a regular death penalty case cost these days? If I recall, it's about a million dollars each. And then, we have to add security for the trial...since other terrorists might wish to interefere. How much can we afford? How many agents must we dedicate to each case so that we can prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, that the perp was guilty?

Oh, yes...how about the Judge? And the prosecutor? How are we to protect them 24/7 from other terrorists? Surely we cannot expect them to do their jobs effectively if they or their families are at real risk of being attacked by friends of the terrorist.

And then we have the jury. Twelve citizens, brave and true. And just one stubborn sort needed to prevent conviction. Compromise one - through threat or bribe - and you've neatly stopped the process in it's tracks.

Consider the defense attorney. Let us suppose that he (or she?) has some sympathies towards the terrorists. And he then communicates to active terrorists the names and home addresses that the jury members are required to write down. Do you suppose a terrorist group just might be able to intimidate a juror? Or, failing that, kill one.

Alternate jurors, you say? Sure. But that ups the cost too, doesn't it?

So now we've got security around our prosecutors, judges, and the jurors. Great! What about the witnesses? How about the cops that arrested the terrorist?

Nor does the problem end here! If a terrorist cell is willing to kill people, it seems a reasonable bet that they are willing to lie. So what happens when half a dozen friends of the alleged perp swear that he was with them, studying pig farming according to ol' 'hammed? The prosecution has one witness who saw Abdul in poor light from 30 yards away for a few seconds, and the defense had six witnesses, all nicely dressed in new blue suits with white shirts and red power ties who swear that they were all together. How, exactly, are we to handle it?

Terrorism is more dangerous than organized crime ever dreamed of being, because the terrorists have a primary goal of hurting and killing innocent people. Are we as a society prepared to accept lots of dead innocents as the alternative?

So, in all seriousness, let's see some ideas about how to deal with terrorists.

[mrsmith]

"If we give extraordinary jailing powers to the Bush Administration..."
We already have, It took 3000 innocent dead for Congress to do it:

"Public Law 107-40
To authorize the use of United States Armed Forces against those responsible for the recent attacks launched against the United States.... the President is authorized to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons..."

Any citizen detained under the authority of public law 107-40 can, of course, petition for a writ of habeas corpus and have a court check the administration's determination and be released if the court finds it unwarranted.

I think Hillary would have a great difficulty in convincing a court that Free Republic (for instance) had aided AlQueda (though the NYT, LAT, Wash Post and network news would back her all the way of course)!

[eshu]

For some reason the Feds have been able to go after the Mafia without using extraconstitutional procedures. Why can't they deal with people accused of terorism the same way as they dealt with (for example) John Gotti?

[pray4liberty]

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.

Does he have Bill & Hill in mind to go first?

[neutrino]

Why can't they deal with people accused of terorism the same way as they dealt with (for example) John Gotti?

John Gotti - along with his organization - was involved in ten murders total. A single suicide bomber does that much, and more.

You help me make my point - organized crime...with all the bad things it does...is not primarily oriented to killing innocent people. Terrorists ARE. Please consider the points in my post #106.

[Recovering_Democrat]

You're creating a wonderful, wonderful straw man. And you're ripping him into shreds, exactly how straw men are created. The problem, though, is that you're not dealing with reality when it comes to American history.

Your fears, which I grant are honest, seem to be unable to accept the truth about war and how America conducts it, to wit: civil liberties are sometimes restricted--and then they are restored. Every, every, every time this has happened in America, because the citizenry and the officials alike recognize what is done in emergency is done for the good of all. There should be no difference here.

[Hoosier Patriot]

Clearly, you don't like the idea of the camps.

Since you've apparently missed that my sole concern is for American citizens finding themselves branded as a [terrorist, enemy of the State, enemy combatant, take your pick], let me state my position more clearly for you.

Let's suppose that we can make the rules.

The rules are the Constitution.

Please tell me how (how, exactly) we are to deal with the problem?

By following the rules.

[JohnathanRGalt]

Clearly, you don't like the idea of the camps.

Very well. Let's suppose that we can make the rules. Please tell me how (how, exactly) we are to deal with the problem?

Take every point you made in post #106 and replace the word 'terrorist' with 'mafioso' / 'drug kingpin' / 'serial killers'. We give those very evil people a fair and open trial -- I want nothing less for terrorists. Yes, the Mafia also intimidates and bribes law enforcement, juries, judges, witnesses but that doesn't mean that we gut the constitution because some people are monsters.

[JohnathanRGalt]

"Atty. Gen. John Ashcroft's announced desire for camps for U.S. citizens he deems to be 'enemy combatants'..."

Where/when was this "desire" announced, and what are the specifics? A link would be helpful.

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.

Apparently it was not publicized very much. I can't find an original link to it anywhere.

[Elsie]

HOW
MANY
MORE
MURDERED
FELLOW
CITIZENS
DOES
IT
TAKE??

I was convinced on 9/11, and so was most of the country.

---

I was fairly convinced after Waco and Ruby Ridge.

 

Oh, that's right: we didn't suspend any of their rights - we just killed 'em.

[ravingnutter]

If you TRULY love America , the land of the free and home of the brave, you do not blindly follow , you do not desire your fellow citizens be deprived of their rights without a fair trial.

Okay, a question for you how should Johnny Walker Lindh be treated? He is a US citizen. Should he have a criminal trial? IMHO, he was caught red-handed fighting against America and should be treated as an enemy combatant aka a POW, just like the prisoners at Guantanamo Bay. I personally don't understand why he is in a US brig and not at GB with his "compatriots" he loves so much.

As for the average citizen, I repeat again, why would Aschcroft publicly support the 2nd Amendment if he intends to put us all in camps as some on here suggest? It makes no sense, the logic is faulty. As for the claims of possibly tyranny by future leaders, I think they are once again being scare-mongers, they underestimate the American people. Too many Chicken Littles on this thread for me, LOL!

[ravingnutter]

Apparently it was not publicized very much. I can't find an original link to it anywhere.

Precisely the point, the scare-mongers are out in full force. They need to loosen their tin foil.

[fogarty]

Actually it is Bush and Ashcroft who are ignoring Al-Qaeda more than any right-winger or person concerned about the US Constitution. Look at the Airlines! What has Bush's appointees done to remove the threat (ie middle Eastern men of Islamic faith) from Airlines? Not a damn thing. They are profiling old white ladies and handicapped vets. What is Bush doing with our borders? He's giving amnesty out like it was candy to kids!

So don't push the BS line that it is all for the sake of the "War on Terrorism" that AMERICANS are giving up privacy and liberties every day. If Bush was serious about terrorism, we'd seal up our nothern and southern borders and start profiling Muslims left and f*ckin right.

Evidently though, Ashcroft considers white Protestants and pro-life Christians to be the biggest threat.

[jonascord]

It's known as "Waving the Bloody Shirt," and is no different than Hitler's "Blut Fahn". Ashcroft is getting nuttier and nuttier. We all went to bat for him when his nomination was on shaky ground, and somehow he thinks that he is now Himmler.

First make them wear yellow stars, and put them in ghettos, and then 'intern' them for protective custody, and then 're-settle' them...

It's SO EFFING easy!

[Spirited]

Anyone here recall Corrie Ten Boon?

Boenhoffer?