Posted on 08/18/2002 12:31:24 PM PDT by BellStar
ATTORNEY General 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 earlier this month 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-Qaida is a threat to the lives of our citizens,
Ashcroft has become a clear and present threat to our liberties.
The camp plan was forged at an optimistic time for
Ashcroft's small inner circle, which has been carefully
watching two test cases to see whether this vision
could become a reality. The cases of Jose Padilla and
Yaser Esam Hamdi will determine whether U.S. citizens
can be held without charges and subject to the
arbitrary and unchecked authority of the government.
Hamdi has been held without charge even though the
facts of his case are virtually identical to those in
the case of John Walker Lindh. Both Hamdi and Lindh
were captured in Afghanistan as foot soldiers in
Taliban units. Yet Lindh was given a lawyer and a
trial, while Hamdi rots in a floating Navy brig in
Norfolk, Va.
Last week, the government refused to comply with a
federal judge who ordered that he be given the
underlying evidence justifying 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."
In Padilla's case, Ashcroft initially claimed that the
arrest stopped a plan to detonate a radioactive bomb in
New York or Washington, D.C. The administration later
issued an embarrassing correction that there was no
evidence Padilla was on such a mission. What is clear
is that Padilla is an American citizen and was
arrested in the United States -- two facts that should
trigger the full application of constitutional rights.
Ashcroft hopes to use his self-made "enemy combatant"
stamp for any citizen whom he deems to be part of a
wider terrorist conspiracy.
Perhaps because of his discredited claims of preventing
radiological terrorism, aides have indicated that
a "high-level committee" will recommend which citizens
are to be stripped of their constitutional rights and
sent to Ashcroft's new camps.
Few would have imagined any attorney general seeking to
re-establish such camps for citizens. Of course,
Ashcroft is not considering camps on the order of the
internment camps used to incarcerate Japanese American
citizens in World War II. But he can be credited only
with thinking smaller; we have learned from painful
experience that unchecked authority, once tasted,
easily becomes insatiable.
We are only now getting a full vision of Ashcroft's
America. Some of his predecessors dreamed of creating a
great society or a nation unfettered by racism.
Ashcroft seems to dream of a country secured from
itself, neatly contained and controlled by his
judgment of loyalty.
For more than 200 years, security and liberty have been
viewed as coexistent values. Ashcroft and his aides
appear to view this relationship as lineal, where
security must precede liberty.
Since the nation will never be entirely safe from
terrorism, liberty has become a mere rhetorical
justification for increased security.
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.
In A Man for All Seasons, Sir Thomas More was
confronted by a young lawyer, Will Roper, who sought
his daughter's hand. Roper proclaimed that he would cut
down every law in England to get after the devil.
More's response seems almost tailored for
Ashcroft: "And when the last law was down and the devil
turned round on you, where would you hide, Roper, the
laws all being flat? This country's planted thick with
laws from coast to coast and if you cut them down --
and you are just the man to do it -- do you really
think you could stand upright in the winds that would blow then?"
Every generation has had Ropers and Ashcrofts who view
our laws and traditions as mere obstructions rather
than protections in times of peril. But before we allow
Ashcroft to denude our own constitutional landscape, we
must take a stand and have the courage to say, "Enough."
Every generation has its test of principle in which
people of good faith can no longer remain silent in the
face of authoritarian ambition. If we cannot join
together to fight the abomination of American camps, we
have already lost what we are defending.
Turley is a professor of constitutional law at
George Washington University, in Washington, D.C.
PS: they are no longer running rampant, hombre. They have been busted, and the leader was sentenced to 55 year's jail with a non-parole period of 40 years here in Sydney last week. Regards, By.
Won't happen to me unless I run out of ammo.
Do you even have a clue what due process and the Bill of Rights and Constitutional Protections mean? It's obvious you don't. Hope you never have to find out what it's like to live without it....though you seem to be quite happy to rid yourself of them.
First: WRONG. What it makes him is a member of a recognized foreign government's military, which makes him no longer a US citizen, there fore he can also not be tried by the US. He should be handed back over to the Afghan tender mercies. As for whom I was referring to, it was Padillo.
Wrong. Once he joined the military of a recognized foreign power, he lost his citizenship. Padillo was never a member of an established enemy military.
Then allow me to restate the question: "without our liberties, what good are our lives?"
Last October, when a battle was ragging here, about how Congress should declare war against OBL / the Taliban, whomever, someone posted the actual documentation, about the Barbary Pirates. Go find that, in the FR archives; don't just take my word for it. What you posted, is incorrect. LOL
I have no problem with that.
John Howard legitimately helped in Afghanistan despite the fact it really was a business deal gone bad,Powell gave the Taliban 5 million last May 2001 knowing full well what scum they were,in fact what scum they all are KLA PLO etc etc CIA trained the lot,its the CIA director that keeps going to Arafats rescue.I hope he seriously considers our next engagement China,North Korea,Syria,Iran theres too many that might go up when this happens,it may not just be watching Roger Ramjet videos on CNN all these outfits know whats been threatened and might decide a team is the best way to go and as with the Roman Empire the Goths,Visygoths and Huns are allready within our borders.I have serious reservations about anything other than a negotiated Idi Amin like escape for this chap...then let someone sort him out later
Excuse me? Is this a threat? Consider yourself reported for abuse, comrade. And you might be lucky if you're not contacted by my attorney.
Yeah, just like ol' whacky Adolph was just an eccentric Austrian who'd taken over Germany...until he moved on all of Europe.
Swallow all the Democrat liberal/Eurotrash swill you want. I'm glad someone who takes threats to world stability seriously is in the White House.
Little wonder the Continent comes running to America when dictators over run them.
RD, there is no comparison between Hitler's capabilities, and Saddam's. No comparison.
Look, I'm going to go on the record here, and predict there's not going to be any Iraqi invasion. The world's completely against it, and Bush is too much of an internationalist to go it alone. There are far more important reasons why it should not happen, but those are the actual reasons why it won't.
The men in question are traitors. Congress has authorized POTUS to conduct war on the terrorists responsible for the attacks on our fellow citizens. This gives the POTUS the authority to order the deaths of combatants on the battlefield wherever that battlefield may happen.
The President has designated Hamdi and Padilla as combatants. The law of the land is that he has every right to do so, Ex Parte Quirin. So far, three federal judges have upheld this precedent. Quirin is quite explicit on the fact that being a "citizen" does not trump being an enemy comabatant.
If they are entitled to the full protection of the Constitution as you seem to think then Hamdi, not having been Mirandized on the battle field, is free to walk even though he was trying to kill Americans. Doesn't make any sense at all.
The use of the term "enemy combatants" is not of AG Ashcroft's invention. WW2 resulted in some individuals being labelled as such. As far as "camps?" They already exist, Quantico comes to mind. There are others. These types of offenders need to be isolated from the prison population in general. For their own protection as well as intel value.
As I have explained at least a DOZEN times on this board, Padilla HAS a lawyer. He WILL get a trial. Even if a military tribunal it will still be fair. Ever been in one? I have. The idea that he will simply be taken to Leavenworth USP and dropped down an elevator shaft with a rope arounbd his neck is laughable.
You are as wrong about this case as you were about the outcome of our war in Afghanistan. Hurts to be wrong all the time, now doesn't it? As to your childish little digs? I am ex-military, as well as LEO. The idea that I need a lecture from you or the other uninitiated idiots on this board is beyond funny. Grow up.
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.