An Astounding Remark

Future of Freedom Foundation ^ | Sheldon Richman

[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.

[Loopy]

The problem with your reasoning, and I do understand what you are saying, is that Mr. Ashcroft was not simply giving a speach. He was reading from prepared remarks. Thus, what he said had been thought out and decided upon beforehand. So, what was said can be objectively verified. We are not talking about the veracity of a speaker saying "I swear" where that speaker may have dubious credibility. We are discussing a preplanned prepared statement read by someone with very clear meaning.

I happen to remember the remarks because they caused quite a stir when they were presented. Mr. Ashcroft read them in his usual monotone. There was no voice inflexion to indicate that he was limiting his statement to the ACLU or NAACP. He simply said what he said. I recall being unnerved at the time and I am no ACLU or NAACP member (and despite what some of you may think (this point is not directed at you Piasa) I am also not a Libertarian).

[d14truth]

"Give me liberty, college football, heavy metal music, a tall cold one and..oh..NASCAR, and I will be hunky dory."

We agree on 60%, for sure, and if the 'tall cold one' is a beverage and not a woman, then 80% of the 'hunky dory' items. {;~)

[Dick Bachert]

You are correct, sir.

But while not very productive, my spleen has never felt better :-))

Promise to IGNORE Blake#1's further insipid and idiotic posts. DB

[unsycophant]

You're just mad that you didn't think of unsycophant first, Loopy.

Do you think Janet Reno would have done a better job with this stuff than Ashcroft is doing? Granted, she never insisted that breasts be covered (but then....!).

[Loopy]

No, I think Ms. Reno would have probably been worse although that's a relative term. I mean losing some of your freedom is like being a little pregnant. The only difference I can see between Reno and Ashcroft is that Mr. Ashcroft is far more subtle, and does not need brute force the way Ms. Reno did. That said, he has not burned down any churches yet.

[wcbtinman]

re:post 239 ...isn't that what terrorists want?"

Ashcroft just did what the terrorists want. He restricted our freedoms by compromising the Bill of Rights to the Constitution.

All in the name of "protecting" my freedom.

[FreeTally]

..., and if the 'tall cold one' is a beverage and not a woman, then 80% of the 'hunky dory' items.

LOL!! You can assume its not a woman. A heartbeat isn't optional for me.

[Askel5]

Oh, I get it now; Ashcroft's statement doesn't bother you; you hate Ashcroft.

Oh good ... a definitive example of your ability to detect the inner motives of FrancisandBeans and assign to "hate" what I read as a distaste for duplicitous statements.

For reference purposes:

Here, let me lay it out for you. John Ashcroft says he fights terrorism. Bill Clinton says he works hard. People SAY alot of things. It doesnt make them true. John Ashcroft has said more things that seem to be anti-freedom than things he has said that are pro-freedom. This statement shows that. The statement of his underling shows that. The fact that he consumes himself with petty worries about a statue with exposed breasts being in a picture with him speaks volumes about his insecurity.

Can you point out for me the exact portions which evidence a "hate crime" for you?

We know full well that liberals in this nation are apt to view criticism as "hate" and discerning as racism, sexism or some such passing of judgment based on appearances. That's pretty standard.

But your ability to think and argue like a liberal is particularly intriguing ... I'm very interested in a Conservative's ability to detect the "hate" and -- since you're so good at it -- perhaps you would be so kind as to share your analytical methods with us.

Feel free to just highlight the pertinent "hate" remarks of Francis with use of either <em></em> or <font color= red"></font>

Thanks ever so, Howlin.

[Howlin]

This one right here was the clue that did it for me:

The fact that he consumes himself with petty worries about a statue with exposed breasts being in a picture with him speaks volumes about his insecurity.

That's probably WAY too involved for "common people" like you to understand. You are now portraying yourself as a "common person," aren't you?

[Miss Marple]

"Tell me, what do the simple folk do...."

Camelot, Lerner and Lowe.

[jwalsh07]

The appeal is to emotion, and is most definitely subject to implication that should be obvious to anyone with a familiarity with vocabulary.

:-}

In other words if I don't deconstruct a simple declarative sentence to your liking, I'm an idiot?

Perhaps Loopy, but you haven't convinced me to be afraid no less, very afraid.

I asked Jefferson to give me an example of one arrest at Ashcrofts request indicative of your comments since he gave this speech. I await your reply.

[Askel5]

That's probably WAY too involved for "common people" like you to understand. You are now portraying yourself as a "common person," aren't you?

Oooh ... I feel the love.

[Aurelius]

They sould create a new post for Ashcroft: Assistant (yes, a demotion) Attorney General in charge of draping nude statues in Federal Buildings.

[Loopy]

No you're an idiot if you can't understand a simple declarative statement such as Mr. Ashcroft made and which you insist on torturing into meaningless.

In terms of arrests, well, I'm not sure the point is really relevant. Indeed, if the point is to cause a chilling effect, which is exactly what I suspect it was, then actual arrests are irrlevant. And I am hardly in a position to tell you what Mr.Ashcroft orders from the privacy of his office, nor are you in a position to tell me what he does not do therefrom.

Having said that, I know of at least three instances where people have been harassed by the FBI for making statements questioning the effect of the laws we are discussing. I am afraid that I did not bookmark these articles. I am sure you will insist that I run out and find these for you, else I'm a liar. But I will not do so, because nothing I could write to you will change your mind.

That said, here's the three that come to mind.

(1)Mr. Raisethefist.com was recently arrested by the FBI. Stories abounded about it on FR. It should be easy enough for you to find if you care to.

(2)Approximately a month ago, some liberal fat girl in a college somewhere was questioned extensively by the FBI when reported for her activities which some claim were anti-american.This was reported heavily on DU although I don't remember if it was also reported on FR.

(3) A Muslim professional in California was questioned extensively for his speaking out about proposals made by the feds vis-a-vis the Patriot Act. This was also reported on FR.

Now, whether these were particularly after this speach or before I don't remember. However, this is clearly the worry of those who speak out against such things. It has clearly happened. Clearly the Feds have the power to do so, as any number of instances during the Clinton Administration proved. (Or have you forgotten Kathleen Willey's dead dog, slashed tires and visits from mysterious strangers while jogging?) You assume that Mr. Ashcroft would not do the same. Especially to those "aiding the terrorists"? You assume to much.

As I said, I'm sure that nothing I can say will convince you. Deprogramming from Brainwashing is a long an laborious process and I just don't have the time for you.

[jwalsh07]

No you're an idiot if you can't understand a simple declarative statement such as Mr. Ashcroft made and which you insist on torturing into meaningless.

OK Loopy, thats as far as I got and as far as I'm going.

Be afraid Loopy, it suits you.

[deport]

"Tell me, what do the simple folk do...."

simple things

[RightWhale]

They love Big Brother

I'll just mention that I think you don't know the poster you are commenting on at all, and then I'll go back to my corner.

[Howlin]

It's probably just gas.

Now answer my question: you are portraying yourself as a "common people" now, aren't you? Do you consider yourself common?

[Beenliedto]

I am all for this country and, for the most part, the war, however I will not stand back and watch liberties yield (and when they do it tends to be permanent) so that we may win a fight against an enemy who hasn't shown himself.

The problem with being for the "war" is that the "war" has become a cover for a bunch of other stuff, if in fact it ever was anything else.

This is the second most gigantic power grab in the history of this nation (the first being the unpleasantness of 1861-1865).

We need to start recognizing this for what it is, the advancement of the state at the expense of individual liberties.