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.
"Please bask in his glory."
At least the media is able to ascertain who his 'relatives' are, and use them to smear him. Unlike the non-nuclear families where the only relative anyone knows for sure is BIG BROTHER!!!
And if it is a phantom, who is being aided by the Eurotrash and their American allies in keeping that garbage on the front burner?
I hope you are correct. I personally felt his statement was more ominous. By the way, I agree ,the detainees should not be classified as POWs. However, I feel they should be proven guilty in court or tribunal before execution.
Isn't turning over 'moderate' rocks fun? See which way they scurry to find cover. The 'middle of the road' is a dangerous place. Of course, the choices are the 'wrong' side or the 'right' side.
Anytime it boils down to Republicans and Democrats, what you're essentially talking about the the "good cop-bad cop" game being played on a national scale. All that either really wants to do is bust your ***. Only real difference is the methodology.
This will not change without a viable external threat to their power base, i.e., a third party. It might not change at all. Y'all just might have to get used to that boot on your face, forever.
What exactly does this mean? It means everything and nothing at the same time. It is pure hyperbole. "Scare"..."phantoms". The use of these words assumes the worthlessness of those espousing objections without ever addressing those objections.
He could have said, "To those who claim that our using military tribunals against immigrants caught trying to help Al Quaeda or those who claim that requiring individual searches of all passengers boarding planes at the airport constitute violations of liberty, I would say that people espousing such views do not assist our efforts to stop local terrorist acts. " This would have been much less objectionable. But by using such a broad brush, he includes many people not all of whom (myself included) would side with people that oppose military tribunals for foreigners, for instance, but who otherwise disagree with the potential, and forseeable and probable, use of the Patriot Act's provisions in otherwise unrelated domestic contexts.
??? Facts, please.
You responded: 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.
Are you aware that your reply makes absolutely no sense. How is saying that Bush is not perfect akin to saying he is evil? You may want to rethink your take on logic. And its not the lesser of two evils defense, either. Clinton is an evil scumbag; Bush is a decent guy with bad press until 9/11, and he's showing the world what a man with faith and courage can do. Clinton was in office eight years, did nothing to end al-Qaeda or terrorism in general, but did manage to allow them to grow and also to help incite the attacks. Bush has had five months since the 9/11 attacks and has turned the world on its ear. And you think he's evil. Get a grip.
I would have been happier if he had more prominently emphasized that discussion of these matters is appropriate; and perhaps phrased his warning a little differently. But I honestly do not think he intended it as a "tactic". I think he (or an aide) wrote something; it sounded good; and they probably didn't think enough about how people would hear it.
In any event the rest of his remarks ought to provide some reassurance to people. The steps taken so far that he summarized seem pretty reasonable.
LOL!
Good to know, Man of Substance!
His meaning (read:implication) is entirely clear. When Bush or Rush says that the Democrats are trying to scare old folks that their Social Security is to be taken away (statements, or the equivalents thereof, I recall both making from time to time)we know the implication, do we not? We know that the implication is that the statements being made that Social Security is at risk are baseless and have no merit whatsover, hence the use of the word "Scare" not "baseless". The appeal is to emotion, and is most definitely subject to implication that should be obvious to anyone with a familiarity with vocabulary.
Did someone overturn the 2nd Amendment? Why do you think it's the government's business whether you are keeping munitions in your closet?
I don't trust government or politicians. I fault our government for not protecting us on 9/11 - THEIR SOLE CONSTITUTIONAL DUTY. They sure were able to get the welfare checks out to crack addicts on time.
The best thing that can be done to secure our nation internally is to round up all the illegal middle eastern immigrants. Why won't they do that? Why do they prefer to trash the 4th amendmant instead?
Security is just an excuse. Power is the reason.
It's both dishonest and disgraceful."
We have some large areas of agreement within this statement. However, I do believe that there are 'persecuted Christians' and 'drug users in need' that can become 'terrorists' once on the edge.
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.