Posted on 02/06/2002 5:05:45 AM PST by francisandbeans
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.
No you discounted me because you didn't like what you heard(not a dime's worth of difference between the ACLU and the Libertarians) and couldn't refute it, so you hurled insults.
I happen to think its a true statementa. And I'll give you an example. The debate over whether the terrorists are detainees or pow's can aid the bad guys immensely.
If they are pow's, we are entitled to name, rank and service number and thats it. No questioning which means no information on planned terrorist attacks and more dead Americans.
IMHO, those arguing that Al Quaeda are being denied liberty by being classified detainees rather than pow's is exactly the sought of thing Ashcroft was talking about.
Ashcroft prepared remarks before Senate Judiciary Committee on December 6. (The remarks in question are about two-thirds of the way in.)
Some valid questions about the Patriot Act have been raised. However, I do think the author of the Future of Freedom Foundation article was unfair to the Attorney General; basing so much of the article on a part of one sentence in his remarks.
Your silly and no one pays attention to you anymore. That statement has been addressed on just about every thread you have posted it on and I refuse to address again to make you feel important. I am done with you. Stay away from my conversations because you do nothing more than lower the discourse.
As a 'practicing' libertarian, Ashcroft is just being tolerant and respectful of cultural diversity.--Doesn't want to offend the Islamic fundamentalists that might be watching as he discusses the John 'Taliban' Walker situation.
Thank you for your concern.
LOL! Just one piece of advice francis, take a look in the mirror.
IMHO, it would do you a world of good.
;-/
To those who scare...
Implies that those who mention, think or speak out, from whatever motivation such persons may have, are solely interested in "scaring" people. It implies and indeed assumes, that persons speaking out against, for example, any or all portions of the Patriot Act, are merely scare mongers and have no legitimate concerns.
....with phantoms of lost liberty
Again, makes the assumption that he is right and those opposing are wrong. He disparages divergent opinion. He essentially says in this one phrase that their concerns are not worthy of consideration and then further qualifies this exact thought in the next sentence.
...my message is this: Your tactics only aid terrorists,"
His message is :That those people who speak out in opposition to laws those people believe to be inimical to liberty, rightly or wrongly, are engaging in "tactics" that only aid the terrorists.Therefore, the underlying message is that such people should simply shut up and take it, because if speaking out their concerns helps terrorists, then there is no alternative to silence and acceptance. If one cannot speak one's mind, else they help terrorists, in the eyes of the nation's top law enforcement officer, then you have a classic case of a "chilling effect" on free speech. Look up chilling effect. It's Constitutional Law. The FedGov is not permitted to do things which have a chilling effect on the excercise of people's freedoms. Not that constitutional law has anything to do with the current state of affairs.
Let me state it another way. Let us change Mr. Ashcroft's quotation by removing the negative hyperbole and exchange those terms with more neutral phrases and see what is being said.
Thus done, it reads as follows:
To those who [seek to convince the American Populace of the dangers of][the potential for]...lost liberty, my message is this: Your tactics only aid terrorists,"
The message is clear. If you seem to think that acts such as the Patriot Act pose a danger to civil liberties, then you should shut up, because your speaking out "only aid[s] the terrorists".
I also do not buy the contextual argument made above by some posters. That is a smokescreen. Ashcroft made two statements. Someone else, rightly, pointed out that the statements were each preceded by "to those who would...". This means, that he intended the following statement to be applicable to both preceding groupings.If he had not meant to include legitimate dissent in his statement then he would not have been so inclusive in his statement. He would have been more careful to define the types of fearmongering he was concerned with. But instead, he painted with a very broad brush and included, basically, all dissent.
Yes, and do you realize how many voters didn't have a clue as to who they voted for in the 'BIG' cities?
Hmmm... the "lesser of two evils" defense... let's see.
As you make this argument, are you aware that you are thus admitting that Bush is evil? You may want to rethink your defense. May.
In times of war things change. Most sheeple actually comprehend by now that there are millions of illegals in this country, some Middle Eastern, that may actually be in this country for the sole purpose of destroying it. So the powers that be (who enforce the law) are FINALLY taking measures (bound by LAW, not man) to root out these people. Its that simple....nothing more
I disagree with him saying "phantoms of lost liberty". He denies that the very thing many of us fear is happening at all. I don't see the threat of lost liberty as a "phantom". I see it as a very real threat. The fact that as AG Ashcroft chose to address this tells me he sees it as a threat to his agenda.I realize his words do not carry the force of law. However, they do set the tone for the entire law enforcement community. That's why I find them disturbing.
The first amendment protects both popular and unpopular speech equally. Don't tell me this is "yelling fire in a crowded theatre" either. That analogy doesn't hold water.I see his words as an attempt to squelch dissent when dissent is most desperately needed.
Respectfully
So, he was prescient. :-}
Really, whats the difference when it was made. What I see is thought police in action. Loopy is telling me what Ashcroft implied so therefore Loopy inferred.... I mean come on, you can't judge a man by what you think is in his mind, that goes one step further than thought police.
If or when I see people being arrested or intimidated for speaking their feeble minds, I'll join you but to go to the mats based one sentence in a long well thought out statemnet is not something I'm going to do.
"Those who seek to rob this nation of our surplusses by giving out tax breaks to the rich and hurting the economy. By hurting our economy they are aiding terrorism."
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.