A clear and present danger: Ashcroft scheme simply chilling

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.

Wish I could be as positive as you are. Even if UBL is dead, Mugniyah and El Zwerheri (Egypt cleric) are still alive by all accounts. Better check spelling of both those guys-anyway, Mugniyah is considered FAR more dangerous than the rest.

The country the 9-11 terrs came from was Saudi Arabia, not Afghanistan, at least 15 of them anyway.

Al Queada is in many more countries, yours in fact. RE:Iraq? You want evidence that Iraq is involved? How about the training camp with mockups of planes identical to those hi-jacked? Just because it isn't in the papers doesn't mean Iraq is not involved. That is how these people operate. Look how long it took to tie Libya to the Lockerbie shoot down. These terrs do not attack with marked aircraft as the Japanese did. They don't wear uniforms. And neither of us is privy to precisely what the gov. knows about Iraq and the rest of our enemies..

Many here feel Iraq was involved in OKC bombing. And not just the "tinfoil" crowd. You seem to want to only get America back on the money track. Is your portfolio down a little? Mine is, but my country and it's survival comes first.

Remember, one of ashcroft and the new homeland security's next "major concerns" is cyberterrorism. that means if you post something here that they think sounds like you're a terrorist, well- kiss your wife and kids goodbye, 'cause no one will get to see you for a long, long time.

Biggest lie that ever was told. We aren't talking about people who post controversial or even repugnant views. We're talking about people who post illegal material. And I think you know what kind.

AHEM

Herbert Haupt was arrested in June,1942. Tried and convicted in Nov. same year. Padilla was picked up in May. No trial yet. No firm decision made on his "future." He has a long and shady past. I suspect FBI is reviewing who his jailhouse friends/contacts were. A veritable recruitment center for Muslim "activists." He was also "gang related." Latin Disciples. Many of these vermin bang with more than one gang. Any evidence will be hard to locate. Time consuming. Surely many of Padillas' "associates" have died from gun shots, drug OD, AIDs,etc. Will be a long and difficult road to sort out this mess. Even then, results may be inconclusive. But he is too dangerous to merely let go.

The men in question are traitors.

How do you know?

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.

What's the President's evidence? Ex Parte Quirin? An American citizen landing with the Germans to spy during a declared war and was caught in the act? That's undeniable evidence, and sufficient for revoking citizenship. Where is that unquestionable evidence for Hamdi and Padilla?

Federal judges have upheld the precedent. Do you understand that federal district court establish no precedent, except for the limited area in which they are? Federal district courts across the nation have ruled differently from one another in just about every legal question raised in this country. For a question of this magnitude, their ruling has the accuracy of the opinion of a barroom bum.

Certainly being a citizen does not trump being an enemy combatant. But where is the evidence of these two men being enemy combatants, not overwhelming evidence, just enough to establish a prima facie case? The Justice Dept has refused to provide any when ordered to by one of those unfallible federal court you seem to hold such faith in.

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.

If they are American citizens, they are entitled to due process. If they are enemy combatants, the same evidence that proves so is the same evidence that could strip them of their citizenship. Where is the evidence? How do you know either of these two men were trying to kill Americans?

What doesn't make any sense at all is one citizen being so fast to establish a precedent to trample the rights of another. Don't you realize, that if for some reason the "government" (executive authority) had some grievance against you that you could be in the same position, and you could screan, "I didn't do anything!" all you wanted and no one would hear you because of this same precedent?

Are you crazy?

But he is too dangerous to merely let go.

So? Charge him and deny bail. A simple prima facie case could keep him in detention. If there is evidence enought to prove him an enemy combatant, there evidence enough to strip him of his citizenship and hold him militarilly for a military tribunal. Nothing you have said is supported by anything other than the word of the Justice Dept.

Do you trust your elected officials and appointed bureaucrats so much that you will put your own liberty in their hand on their word only? This is why the Founders established due process. They know how untrustworthy a government run by human beings is.

By your willingness to accept such shenanigans without question, you place my, as well as your, liberty and well being at risk. All government forms in history, especially elderly ones like ours, has been studies in corruption and power seeking. What in the hell makes you think this one is any different?

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.

I didn't compare capabilities. I compared ambitions and attempts. Of course Hitler knew he would lose against the United States, his problem was he thought he could nullify us before we got it together, as detailed in "A Man Called Intrepid".

I don't know about Iraqi invasion. As far as I've heard the President speak, he hasn't either. The policy of the United States of America is "regime change".

As for the world being completely against it, no. At least one government--the government capable of carrying out an invasion if one is necessary--isn't necessarily against it. And that is what matters.

This President told Europe he would follow a pro-USA path with Kyoto and the outdated ABM Treaty. He's going to do the same with Iraq--follow a policy that protects his homeland, no matter how much it enrages the anti-Capitalists in Europe and America.

Precedent set in WW2. Upheld by SCOTUS in 1947-Ex Parte Quirin. No,I am not privy to the evidence against Padilla etal, are you? Yes, I trust AG Ashcroft. Padilla will get a trial sooner or later. Military or otherwise. Have participated in both. Merely because Padilla faces (if so) a military tribunal, it does not mean he will be kicked down an elevator shaft in Leavenworth USP, with a rope around his neck.

The instant case doesn't have the same facts as Ex Parte Quirin, and you have only a district court ruling it does. An appeal court or the SC is more than liable to overturn the distict court's ruling. They do it all the time.

No, I dont' have the evidence for the either one of the men's detention, and neither do you, and, this is telling, neither does a federal court.

American citizens are not liable for a military tribunal, remember? This was explicitly stated in Bush's executive order. So, as American citizens, the men must have a civilian trial. You can't hold men due a civilian trial without charges, unless you are trying to overturn the foundation of American law.

The Justice Dept knows these cases don't fit the facts in Ex Parte Quirin, and that they found a couple of tame federal judges to rule in their favor means nothing, as explained before. This is obviously a test to see how far American will allow this to go. and you trust a man who would do experimentation like this.

Padilla has been declared an "enemy combatant" or "unlawful combatant." In 1942 SCOTUS defined this term in Ex Parte Quirin and confirmed the authority of Congress and the President to try terrorists via military commissions/tribunals. Most of the prisoners (6 of 8) were executed, including US citizen.

Enemy combatants have fewer legal rights than ordinary citizen defendants in criminal proceedings.

That is my interpretation. No lawyer here. But I have read several statements from legals experts and have previously checked with an attorney friend of mine. This essentially sums up what they said.

As to what happens next? Well, Rumsfeld has already said they are more interested in what this jerk knows than they are in tossing the book at him. If he levels with DOD/DOJ? He will get off lightly. Otherwise? See ya in a hundred years (Padilla)!

Declared an "enemy combatant"? On what evidence? If not evidence is required, that he means he could "declare" you or me an "enemy combatant", and not have to justify it with verifiable evidence at all. To do one mean he can do the other.

Do you get this? To waive the requirement of presentable and verifiable evidence is to rest totally on the good heart and even temper of a human being. American justice system is not organized that way. Ashcroft or one of his agents may just read my posting on this thread, get pissed at me and declare me an "enemy combatant". What could I do, within the criteria you seem to find adequate?

I would get another lawyer friend.

Perhaps a writ of Habeas Corpus. Why no such write been filed on the case of the men detained after all this time? Or has there been, and it was disallowed by a tame federal judge. Such a writ doesn't have be filed by a lawyer, a next friend will do. The writ is simple and straight forward.

I doubt if Ann knows anything about the documents being filed in this case. If evidence can be refused to be presented for reason of national security, an HB can be dismissed secretely.

Your faith and trust is touching, but hardly adequate to retain the liberties won from England, who, incidently, pulled just such tricks as this. "Liberty requires eternal vigilance". What do you suppose that could mean in under a government where the officials are "trustworthy"?

You seem confused here my friend. It is not I that is saying this. It is what is written. What I have read. What an attorney told me. Are you an attorney? Or do you just play one on FR?

There have been many articles which cite what I say. I am not trying to justify it, merely explaining to you that it has in fact been upheld by SCOTUS, previously.

Again, you ask ME for evidence! I have none! Sheez!

My lawyer is quite competant. Former Fed DA and now in private practice. There are more than just a few thugs that wish they never encountered him...

Again, we seem to have gotten off the beat here. Have you reviewed Ex Parte Quirin? I suppose I can take more time and come up with various newspaper articles which reference what I have said. Again, I don't make the laws, but what Ashcroft has/is doing appears legal according to many in the legal profession. If you choose to side with Turley, fine. But other attorneys do not.

In Turley's case, the messenger is the message. The Left supports the Palestinian cause. The terrorists support the Palestinian cause. If the Left can help the terrorists by making a (further) mockery of American justice, they turn the citizen's system of protection against the citizen. The Left contends the terrorists are merely accused of "ordinary" crimes and must be treated like anyone else accused of "ordinary" crimes. That's Turley's central argument. Once terrirusts are in the "criminal justice" system, like Moussaoui, the Left can paralyze action against them by dragging out every case for three generations, making the system itself part of the war against America. I contend that terrorists are making war against the U.S. and should be treated, when captured, to military justice. While guarding against the political use of military justice (i.e., holding the captured because of their views on American politics rather than their terrorist activities), we must not allow the terrorists to pretend they are just "ordinary" accused. And we must not let the Left get away with supporting them in that pretense. The course I support is not without peril but is, to my mind, far less dangerous than turning the war on terrorism over to the Left and its enablers in the media. We are, I believe, smart enough to restrain government from excess without shielding terrorsts and their supporters from the consequences of their deeds.

There have been many articles which cite what I say. I am not trying to justify it, merely explaining to you that it has in fact been upheld by SCOTUS, previously.

Please understand. The SC had a case during WWII. That case involved certain facts about the circumstances and the defendents. The SC makes a ruling based on those facts and circumstances. If a case came before them involving the same issues but with differents facts and/or circumstances, they will porbably rule differently.

Take a dog-catcher case. Same issue, but one dog-catcher case they may rule in favor of the catcher, but another case they may rule in favor of the dog. The facts and circumstances of the case make for different rulings.

The litigants in the same issue in lower courts try to use higher court rulings as precedent for the ruling they want. One side may point out distinguishing facts and circumstances in the case the other side tries to use. The court may, for that reason, say the case doesn't apply, because the facts and circumstances are different. Or the court may agree the case applies, but the appeals court, or the SC may say it doesn't apply. Because of the facts and circumstances.

The facts in the WWII case and the instant case are different in both the facts and circumstances.

The reason I asked you for evidence justifing the detention of the men in question is to see if you knew. If you don't know, why don't you know? If the Justice Dept had evidence and was forthcoming with it, you would know. That you don't know tells the whole story.

What Ashcroft has/is doing appears to be legal according to the people that have written the articles you have read. I doubt that the number is many in the legal profession. There are just as many that disagree.

But neither the appeals courts nor the Supreme Court has considered the case, so there is absolutely no certainty where you seem to claim there is certainty.
As far as I'm concerned, Ashcroft is playing games, testing the waters, trying to see how far he can go and get away with it. That is, like the article title says, is chilling.

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.