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.

[tracer]

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

What do you mean we, paleface? ]8~)

[headsonpikes]

Return to normalcy bump.

Oops! that was actually a return to the American soil...

Oh well, close enough, I suppose. ;^)

Is it true that Jonathon Turley was the 5th 911 hi-jacker, rw? Sonofab*tch!!

They should lock him up forever!

[Dazedcat]

Thank you.......terrific post.

[Hoosier Patriot]

Okee dokey then. I suppose I'll just trust that what you say will turn out to be correct. Now, where's my remote and bag of chips? There's a Dukes of Hazzard marathon about to start on the teevee box, and I goll durned for sure don't want to miss it, now that I don't have to waste my time being concerned for the potential loss of my liberties. Whoooooweeeee!

[RJCogburn]

What do you mean we, paleface? ]8~)

Uh-oh....I'm feeling surrounded all of a sudden. ;^)

[Hoosier Patriot]

You forgot to mention to be sure and pose the question to the four winds. Those peoples are long gone, having been replaced by the "Native Americans"(trademark, all rights reserved, your mileage may vary, burma shave).

[headsonpikes]

"The camps are being portrayed as something awful...but they weren't. And the new version won't be either."

I guess that's easy to say if one is invisible and undetectable. ;^)

[d14truth]

Once a people of any race, tribe, nation or family stops being just in the handling of the evil within their own group; it is only a matter of time before some other group or agency will, as a matter of defense, deal with the unjust.

When we fail to deal with the problem children in our families, they will be dealt with by outsiders. That is the 'lesson' I have learned from history, and it knows no 'special interests'. It applies to Americans, Islamics, Indians, without exception. You don't take care of your problems, and someone else will take care of them for you--usually not to your liking.(i.e., guardianships, garnishments, taxes, internments, etc.)

[Recovering_Democrat]

Wrong--things never seem to go QUITE all the way back to the status quo ante-bellum. Every "emergency/war/whatever" causes just a LEETLE bit more erosion of our liberties.

Give me an example of constitutional rights suspended during the Civil War that are currently with us; give me an example of civil liberties/freedoms suspended by the government during WW2 (rationing comes to mind) that currently exists.

The fact is, measures taken to kill the enemy during war are temporary and necessary. Our lovefest with "Civil Rights" at the expense of human lives--3,000 on 9/11 and many others before during Impeached42's tenure needs to end. Now.

[a merkin]

Then let our good-for-nothing congress declare war, dammit, and then constituents will demand that the war be prosecuted an brought to a conclusion - unlike the propect in this current unlimited presidetntial war.

[Recovering_Democrat]

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

EVIDENCE.

You people seem to be convicting the administration with an utter LACK of evidence. Pathetic. None of you can point to a single instance where an American citizen's Constitutional Rights have been violated.

No, instead you're drinking the PANIC Kool-Aid of Patty Leahy, John-John Turley, and the ACLU.

HOW
MANY
MORE
MURDERED
FELLOW
CITIZENS
DOES
IT
TAKE??

I was convinced on 9/11, and so was most of the country. Unfortunately, some on the right AND the left are getting too wound up about non-existent violations of rights and ignoring the REAL enemy: Al Qaeda.

[Recovering_Democrat]

Then let our good-for-nothing congress declare war, dammit, and then constituents will demand that the war be prosecuted an brought to a conclusion - unlike the propect in this current unlimited presidetntial war.

The war was declared and authorized on 9/14 in a Joint Resolution. The Constitution, while giving the authority to declare war to the Legislature, does NOT specify what form that declaration must take. By authorizing the Commander-In-Chief to act against those responsible for terrorism against the United States, the war was effectively started.

[Recovering_Democrat]

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

See my reply 89 above. thanks. :)

[freeeee]

measures taken to kill the enemy during war are temporary

Temporary? Maybe you'd like to tell us under exactly what circumstances this "War on Terror" will be declared over, and "War powers" revoked.

[freeeee]

The Constitution, while giving the authority to declare war to the Legislature, does NOT specify what form that declaration must take. By authorizing the Commander-In-Chief to act against those responsible for terrorism against the United States, the war was effectively started.

Maybe you could explain why the administration asked Congress to drop the declaration of war it was drafting after 9-11. After all, according to you there is no difference between a Joint Resolution and a declaration of war. So why would the administration prefer one over the other?

[Rome2000]

We are not at war.

We are at war, it's an undeclared war, just like most of the wars the USA has been invoved in.

Anybody who has a problem with the roundup of the scumbags the Feds are holding doesn't understand the difference between the reality of what it takes to ensure the nations survival and bogus legalisms thrown about by the likes of Jonathan Turley.

If you were the one responsible for the lives of 250 million Ameicans, if you were the one responsible to make sure thousands of Americans don't die in another terrorist incident, you would be doing what Ashcroft is doing and probably worse.

Anybody who disagrees with the war effort does nothing but help the enemy.

You know, the e-n-e-m-y, the one you should be having a problem with.

[luckystarmom]

It's not like we started this whole "war on terroism". It was thrown at us by some militant wackos.

I wonder how people are going to react if there is another large attack. What happens if they really do have a dirty bomb and use it on one of our cities?

(By the way, I'm another isle of sanity in Ca.)

[luckystarmom]

I just got back from a trip to visit my folks in Dallas, Texas. I was really surprised at how many muslims were there. I grew up in Dallas, and things have definitely changed there in the past 10-15 years.

It really bothered me in the airport. The women stick out because of the scarves. However, it didn't make me feel very secure to have a muslim woman at a security checkpoint checking bags.

[seamus]

Turley writes: This week, the government refused to comply with a federal judge who ordered that he be given the underlying evidence justifying [suspected terrorist/enemy combantant Yaser Esam] Hamdi's treatment. The Justice Department has insisted that the judge must simply accept its declaration and cannot interfere with the president's absolute authority in "a time of war."

This is hogwash. The government is merely taking the legal steps necessary to ensure that potential threats to national security are not exposed if this trial is put in a regular, public court. The judge in this case originally ruled against the government, but then stayed her own decision upon hearing what a higher federal court has to say. The government is not running rampant, but acting within the law.

Turley is stirring up unwarranted fear. The lefties put the Bush administration in this position in the first place with its howling opposition to military tribunals. Well, if we can't put these enemy combatants in a military tribunal, we'll just hold them in a way that the Constitution allows until we determine we're safe. Happy now?

[Recovering_Democrat]

Maybe you could explain why the administration asked Congress to drop the declaration of war it was drafting after 9-11. After all, according to you there is no difference between a Joint Resolution and a declaration of war. So why would the administration prefer one over the other?

Maybe you could provide evidence that such a declaration was being drafted. Once you have, I'd be more willing to play the game. There is an answer, btw, but I can't accept your premise.