Posted on 07/15/2002 8:25:01 AM PDT by count me in
If he can spare a few hours from announcing new restrictions on civil liberties, Attorney General John Ashcroft might stop by to hear one of Ronald Reagan's best judicial appointees.
Ashcroft doesn't do much listening, but U.S. District Judge John Coughenour, in his annual address to Western Washington University's Munro Teachers Seminar, might have set him straight on a fundamental truth that has escaped our nation's chief law enforcement officer.
"The Constitution of the United States says what it means and means what it says" is a basic mantra to Coughenour, the chief federal judge for Western Washington.
Coughenour has had occasion to repeat those words, not only at Western but when FBI chief Robert Mueller suggested to him in a conversation that security has supplanted civil liberties concerns in post-9/11 America.
Protestations of a liberal judge?
Nonsense!
Jack Coughenour is one of Republican former Sen. Slade Gorton's closest friends. He was Reagan's first nominee to the federal bench in these parts. His screener at the Justice Department was Ted Olson, who is now U.S. solicitor general.
He is, as well, renowned as a no-nonsense courtroom disciplinarian.
Woe be unto any attorney who arrives late in Coughenour's courtroom. Or any male barrister who does not don a coat and tie, even for the briefest status conference. Or who dares plunk a briefcase on top of the judge's desk.
But it's not hard to see how President Bush's we-are-at-war policies could alarm a stickler for procedure and believer in the rule of law. Or one who concurs, as the late Texas Rep. Barbara Jordan put it, "The Constitution is absolute."
Overriding constitutional guarantees, and daring federal courts to do anything about it, is Bush's battle strategy.
In particular, Coughenour cites the case of Jose Padilla, the one-time Chicago street criminal arrested entering the United States in May and alleged to be in the initial stages of what Ashcroft called a plot to set off "dirty" radioactive bombs.
Padilla has not been charged with a crime. He is being held as an "enemy combatant." Ashcroft claims the government can keep people sitting indefinitely in military brigs, without charge and no access to counsel.
"Mr. Padilla is an American citizen," Coughenour said. "He is before a military tribunal. This is unprecedented."
In 1942, the FBI apprehended German saboteurs landed by submarine on Long Island with the assignment of disrupting American war industries. One turned out to be an American patriot, who turned in his cohorts. The German saboteurs were eventually executed.
They were enemy combatants in every sense of the word. They had a specific mission. Seven were German citizens. The U.S. Congress had officially declared war on the Third Reich.
Does prosecution of this war on terror require running roughshod over our Founders' rules of civil society? Does it make sense to do so?
Judiciously, Coughenour raised these questions Friday before the Munro Seminar (which was taped by TVW and will be broadcast statewide).
In 21 years on the bench, the judge said, what he's come to appreciate most about the American government is the First Amendment -- guaranteeing freedom of speech and assembly -- as well as the right of a defendant to face a jury of his or her peers.
"The commitment to a jury trial -- the idea of putting ordinary citizens between the accused and their government -- is a rather extraordinary thing: It is not universal," Coughenour said.
"What it means is: The government cannot send someone to jail unless 12 ordinary people say, 'The government got it right.'"
Under Bush's rules of detention, the government doesn't have to get it right. Or disclose its evidence. Or even charge someone with a crime.
With Ashcroft questioning the patriotism of anyone who questions him, the administration appears to be getting its way.
Friday, a 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals panel reversed a district court judge's ruling that the "Sec- ond American Taliban," a young man born in Louisiana to Saudi parents, had a right to an attorney.
The appellate judges did stop short of approving the Justice Department's sweeping claim that the president has an absolute right to decide who is an unlawful combatant, and that the courts should butt out. They sent the case back to district court for consideration.
The 4th Circuit panel noted, however, that the Supreme Court has shown great deference to the federal government in deciding matters of national security.
Egregious, needless violations of individual rights have stemmed from that premise. Just remember those 1942 pictures of Japanese Americans on the dock at Bainbridge Island, their internment in remote camps upheld by the Supremes.
The basics of American democracy -- the right to trial, the right to counsel, the rule of law -- need defenders these days.
A man put on the bench by Republicans, Coughenour wonders when Congress' loyal opposition will find a voice.
"In my view, the Democratic Party has a responsibility to speak up on these issues," he said. "It isn't happening. Why aren't they speaking out? I don't understand it."
Strike two: You made me look up a nongermane case.
Want to go for strike three?
As to the non-sequitur you mentioned about the hitching post:
So I wasn't wrong, thank you.
They aren't any different than anyone else
Are you trying to tell me we are a complete nation of sicko homosexual Gender Identity Disorder, soddomite, statutory rapist, boy destoying, pederast, uncurable perverts?
May be ok for you, you can be judged by the company you keep.
I stand in opposition.
Who is a member of the ACLU, does not believe in judicial restraint and apparently gets his information from NPR (to wit: have you read those footnotes yet?)
But generally speaking, the false premise that this "War on Terror" has a specific country upon which Congress could "declare war" is patently absurd on its face. Sorry, but there is no comparison to WWII.
I am more interested in the author, Joel Connelly, and this Judge Coughenour. Connelly's description of this judge as a strict, no-nonsense guy, and the fact that Reagan appointed him does not convince me that the judge is not a scumbag liberal or a scumbag "moderate". It is interesting that Connelly doesn't have any specific "conservative" rulings to cite.
I also wonder what the leanings of Connelly are - - is he always impressed by statements like, "The Constitution of the United States says what it means and means what it says", or does he only like it when it gives him a hammer to beat up on a conservative?
I will be interested to see what other posters have to say about these guys. Posters who are familiar with Connelly and Coughenour. Is Coughenour legit? Or is he a Souter-style scumbag? And is Connelly just another sneaky liberal mouse? What do you know about these people, 'count me in'? I found your "not the words of a liberal" statement.... interesting.
By the way, welcome to Free Republic.
You are either a liar or a fool.
I'm a nice guy so I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and figure you are a very young fool.
Well, if the shoe fits......
How can this be done I wondered?
By claiming that the court must grant the petition! Of course!
I already knew that the ACLU tells us the constitution says that anyone who petitions for a writ of habeas corpus must be granted it and released.
Neither should I be surprised that they think it is the Executive Branch that is at fault if a court doesn't grant it quick enough!
Oh, and the Justice department filed it's response on the H-C petition June 26, and an Amica Curie brief has been filed this month- that might explain why the court is still considering the matter.
The Anti-Constitution League of the Unconcerned with reality just cracks me up.
Now that we know the judge is a liberal scumbag, let's see about the author, Connelly.
Oh what a travesty of the ACLU's (supposed) constitution that a habeas corpus petition must be filed in the court that has jurisdiction against the person who holds him!
LOLOLOLOLOLOL!!!
Idiots, idiots idiots.
I am convinced that the writer is far worse than the judge and took a squishily-liberal judge's remarks out of context, embellished them and made an unrelated point.
Yep, you got it.
I searched the Seattle Post-Intelligencer's archives (search: Connelly) and found that indeed, Connelly is a liberal scumbag. Two of his recent columns decried tax cuts (the needs of the state come first) and smeared Jennifer Dunn for daring to question the unbridled power of the EPA. A sneaky scumbag.
Case closed.
Oh, and to 'count me in' - - nice try. Now get lost.
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.