An Astounding Remark

When Attorney General John Ashcroft told the nation, "To those who scare peace-loving people with phantoms of lost liberty, my message is this: Your tactics only aid terrorists," he wasn't blazing any new trails. He was merely doing what despots and would-be despots always do: attempting to intimidate into silence those who dare to question him.

Ashcroft's statement is one of the most astounding things to be said by a U.S. official in many years. To read it carefully — letting its full message sink in — is to be overtaken by a sense of horror that is otherwise hard to imagine. Every American should be offended to hear the government's chief law enforcement officer equate public expressions of concern about the threats to liberty from drastic "anti-terrorism" measures with joining al-Qaeda. Does Ashcroft have such a low estimate of the American people's intelligence?

Perhaps he needs to become acquainted with Thomas Jefferson. It was Jefferson who said, "The natural progress of things is for liberty to yield and government to gain ground." That's true in the best of times. It's doubly true during war — especially an Orwellian undeclared, open-ended crusade against an enemy as nebulous as "international terrorism." Ashcroft is a perfect Orwellian character. In 1984, Big Brother told his people that "freedom is slavery." It follows that slavery is freedom. Ashcroft refuses to concede that the Bush administration is seeking to curtail liberty in the least. Those who see diminished liberty must be hallucinating, seeing "phantoms of lost liberty."

So when the president unilaterally abolishes due process for noncitizens, we are only imaging an erosion of liberty. And when Congress passes, without even reading, the administration's alleged anti-terrorism bill, which expands the government's powers of surveillance, permits secret searches of homes, and weakens judicial oversight of law enforcement, again, we are deluded if we think freedom is evaporating. I write "alleged anti-terrorism bill" because the new law does not restrict the expanded powers to suspected terrorists, but applies them to any criminal activity. This is a classic power grab under the cover of an emergency. September 11 has given policymakers a chance to bring down from the shelf every new police power they have wanted for years. They assume no one will question the need for such broad powers, and if anyone does, they can shut him up by portraying him as an ally of the terrorists. The game is rigged in favor of power.

It is no comfort that the erosion of liberty in the name of fighting terrorism has a bipartisan cast to it. Democratic Senator Charles Schumer of New York has given his blessing to oppressive government with an op-ed in the Washington Post titled "Big Government Looks Better Now." As Schumer puts it, barely concealing his glee, "For the foreseeable future, the federal government will have to grow... The era of a shrinking federal government has come to a close." Of course, the senator was trying to enlarge it long before September 11.

Schumer insists that only the federal government "has the breadth, strength and resources" to keep us secure. Forgive me for asking, but did we not have a federal government on September 11? Was it not in charge of our security on that date? Then what is the senator talking about? And if it isn't impolite to ask, just where does the federal government get all those resources? Last time I checked, it didn't produce anything. It simply took resources from the people who did produce them.

Once we understand that all government possesses is the power of legal plunder our whole perspective changes. Schumer insists that "the notion of letting a thousand different ideas compete and flourish — which works so well to create goods and services — does not work at all in the face of a national security emergency. Unity of action and purpose is required, and only the federal government can provide it." But he’s got it wrong. Security is a service. Competition and innovation are valuable in the effort to keep ourselves safe. The last thing we need is central planning. That’s what we had on September 11.

This is a year old story, but bears retelling for all who stupidly believe in "equal justice."

Intervention by Ashcroft -- whom I actually respect -- or no, having the RIGHT last name DOES make a difference.

A member of MY family did 2 months in jail when a cop found a 3 month old roach in the ashtray of a car he was driving. First offense. And, no, I don't even smoke cigarettes.

By Daniel Forbes
Jan. 12, 2001 | The nephew of Attorney General-designate John Ashcroft received probation after a felony conviction in state court for growing 60 marijuana plants with intent to distribute the drug in 1992 -- a lenient sentence, given that the charges against him often trigger much tougher federal penalties and jail time. Ashcroft was the tough-on-drugs Missouri governor at the time.

Alex Ashcroft, then 25, and his brother Adam, 19, were arrested and charged with production and possession of marijuana after police raided their home in January, 1992. A housemate, Kevin Sheely, then 24, was also arrested. Officials said approximately 60 marijuana plants were found growing in a basement crawl space, and a lighting, irrigation and security system was also discovered.

Although growing more than 50 plants often triggers federal prosecution, and results in jail time -- thanks to federal mandatory minimum sentencing laws Ashcroft fought to toughen as senator -- Alex Ashcroft was prosecuted on a state charge and received probation. His brother Adam did not live in the house and was never prosecuted.

According to Sheely's lawyer, Dan Viets, who practices in Columbia, Mo., Ashcroft tested positive for drugs during his first post-probation drug test, yet still remained free.

"As I recall it, in his first month on probation, Alex had a positive urine test," Viets said. He asserted he has spoken to someone who has recently seen documentary evidence of the failed test.

Reached for comment, Alex Ashcroft's father Bob first denied that his son had failed a urine test, then said, "Anything's possible." Asked about the failed urine test, Alex's mother, Beverly Ashcroft, told Salon, "I have no idea. That's such an upsetting time, it's all a little foggy."

Ashcroft was sentenced to three years in the Missouri Department of Correction for a class C felony involving more than 35 grams of marijuana. The sentence was suspended, and he was placed on probation for three years and sentenced to 100 hours of community service, which he served.

Ashcroft's parents point out that Sheely, who went before a different judge, received even lighter treatment. Sheely's records are sealed, and all Viets would say is that his client was officially "not convicted." Bob Ashcroft says, "The prosecutor was from the other side of the aisle. He did everything he could to prosecute my son." His mother, Beverly, adds, "I think the facts are clear that his uncle as governor certainly did not bail Alex out."

So when the president unilaterally abolishes due process for noncitizens, we are only imaging an erosion of liberty.

I wasn't aware that non citizens were afforded the same rights as citizens in the Constitution. Please correct me if I'm wrong here.

And when Congress passes, without even reading, the administration's alleged anti-terrorism bill, which expands the government's powers of surveillance, permits secret searches of homes, and weakens judicial oversight of law enforcement, again, we are deluded if we think freedom is evaporating.

A red herring in my opinion.
Exactly then what would Ashcroft's critics do to successfully and expeditiously investigate and root out suspected terrorist and criminal adversaries of America?

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.