Camps for Citizens: Ashcroft's Hellish Vision

Los Angeles Times ^ | Aug. 14, 2002 | Jonathan Turley

[JohnathanRGalt]

Camps for Citizens: Ashcroft's Hellish Vision

Attorney general shows himself as a menace to liberty.

by JONATHAN TURLEY, Jonathan Turley is a professor of constitutional law at George Washington University.

Atty. Gen. John Ashcroft's announced desire for camps for U.S. citizens he deems to be "enemy combatants" has moved him from merely being a political embarrassment to being a constitutional menace.

Ashcroft's plan, disclosed last week but little publicized, would allow him to order the indefinite incarceration of U.S. citizens and summarily strip them of their constitutional rights and access to the courts by declaring them enemy combatants.

The proposed camp plan should trigger immediate congressional hearings and reconsideration of Ashcroft's fitness for this important office. Whereas Al Qaeda is a threat to the lives of our citizens, Ashcroft has become a clear and present threat to our liberties.

(. . . .)

Ashcroft is a catalyst for constitutional devolution, encouraging citizens to accept autocratic rule as their only way of avoiding massive terrorist attacks.

His greatest problem has been preserving a level of panic and fear that would induce a free people to surrender the rights so dearly won by their ancestors.

[droberts]

Fair enough. How do you know when someone should be designated as such?

[AppyPappy]

They make it pretty obvious. I say any illegal aliens are fair game from some camp time.

[zook]

What you describe ain't anywhere near happening. I'd say you're paranoid.

[Jubal Harshaw]

the present policy is no different than that used during WWII

It's my understanding that the names of detainees during WWII were not secret. Further, the US had what we would consider "no" gun control at that time. The point is that the US government faced a larger barrier to tyrany than it currently faces, and interning citizens was therefore not ultimately as dangerous to our freedoms. Today, gun control exists, so giving the government the power to detain us ON TOP OF the gun control is more dangerous.

and upheld by the SC.

The supremes specifically wrote that they did not wish to punish those responsible for citizen detention because they did not wish to second-guess the military authority in time of war. We are not at war. Yes, we've been attacked, but our representatives have not decided that the attack was enough to justify war. Maybe they should have, but they didn't. We are legally at peace; allowing detentions during peacetime is a far more dangerous precedent than allowing then during wartime.

I applaud Ashcroft and Bush for taking this tough stand against enemy combatants, whether US citizens or not.

I don't think any of us are on the side of the enemies of the US. The problem is that the potential for abuse is very high.

[rwfromkansas]

About time for Ashcroft to get serious about going after Islamic terrorists who are U.S. citizens.

Good plan.

[Protagoras]

What you describe ain't anywhere near happening. I'd say you're paranoid.

Ahhh, I got ya. Because you can't see the danger in a logical progression to a predictable end,,,I'm paranoid.

I guess you're right. I'm nuts, I'll go see a doctor to have my tin foil removed.

In the mean time, you can give some thought to conditions in countries during the late thirties, it started slowly...and those countries weren't even free to begin with.

Those who are ignorant of history are blah, blah, blah blah.......

[Sender]

Ashcroft may well be over the line and perhaps even dangerous, but dang, at least finally we have an AG with the balls to admit the most obvious assertion of our fundamental liberty to keep and bear arms. I don't know which is worse...a sudden fear of internment camps, or a slow demise of our rights by the former administration.

[Protagoras]

I don't think any of us are on the side of the enemies of the US. The problem is that the potential for abuse is very high.

The voice of reason is spoken. Bump

But then again, I'm a paranoid, so you must be nuts if I think you make sense.

[droberts]

How much camp time is appropriate?

[rwfromkansas]

BTW, when you like Jonathan Turley, it shows whose whose side you are really on.

[serinde]

I applaud Ashcroft and Bush for taking this tough stand against enemy combatants, whether US citizens or not.

How do you know they are "enemy combatants," whatever that is? What crime have they been convicted of? What proof is there that they actually tried to harm the US?

Anyone can be called an "enemy combatant," with no proof or evidence shown, just the statement that they are "suspicious." Their rights can be stripped, they can be held in prison for an indefinate time, no trial or lawyer provided. Their name may not be released to the public, so no one knows who is being held, or whether someone missing is in fact jailed.

And you think this is OK? For American citizens?

[serinde]

Civil liberties "endangered" during wars (most notably, our Civil War and World War II) are restored immediately upon the cessation of hostilities.

1. Rights taken during these times are never completely restored at the end of the war.

2. Exactly when will this war end? The govt. has said it may go on for years, even indefinately. By your logic, that means America's liberties may never be restored. Yet you do not seem concerned by this. Some people are.

[AppyPappy]

For terrorists, until the trial. For illegals, until we can get them out. We want to avoid terrorists springing bail and heading for home.

[churchillbuff]

Against Arab terrorists, yup.

If we give extraordinary jailing powers to the Bush Administration, aren't we risking getting bitten in the butt when the Dems - eg, Hillary - return to the White House and start using these powers? Clintons used the IRS against their political enemies; do we really want to give the govt vast new powers that the Clintons or their ilk can use on political foes?

[willgetsome]

They must believe all the European hype about America.

Note to JohnathanRGalt and Headsonpikes: Europeans may care about America but most Americans don't care about Europe. The reason? I'd say 2 world wars, the Cold War, and the Balkans. All of which were situations in Europe's own backyard that Americans had to address. When you start pulling your own weight and thank America for all that it did to save your butts in the last Century, we'll start listening to what you have to say. BTW, how's that 60,000 man EU Rapid Reaction Force developing?

[serinde]

but how do we know they really are "enemy combatants" and not just a few troublemakers on an internet web site, for example?

Exactly. From what I've seen, there is no way to tell.

[droberts]

OK, but I don't think this is what Ashcroft is proposing. He seems to want to put people away indefinitely.

[aSkeptic]

"upon the cessation of hostilities"

those are the magic words for me

Israel has been in this position for at least 50 years, I would be shocked if it didn't last another 50. This is us. This fighting will never stop until every last one of us is dead. I personaly would rather die on my feet than live on my knees.

[Rome2000]

People like Jonathan Turley are subversive socialist menaces to society.

He needs to be locked up himself, the unpatriotic are hindering the war effort.