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.
What you are forgeting is that we now have a dumbed down populace that looks to the Federal government as Big Daddy who knows all and provides all. That is the difference. If FDR had attempted to restrict anything more than the 'nasty' machine guns, there would have been hell to pay. Now, almost 70 years later, we have people who don't even understand the concept of gun ownership for self defense, let alone to keep the government in line.
donozark
i don't think that Ashcroft is some evil power grabbing would be tyrant. I think that he believes that what he is doing is right. Just as fervently, I believe he and Bush are wrong on their internal WoT.
"Is life so dear, or peace so sweet as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery . . ." P. Henry March 23, 1775
10. It has long been accepted practice by our military authorities to treat those who, during time of war,pass surreptitiously from enemy territory into our own, discarding their uniforms upon entry, for the commission of hostile acts involving destruction of life or property, as unlawful combatants punishable as such by military commission. This practice, accepted and followed by other governments, must be regarded as a rule or principle of the law of war recognized by this Government by its enactment of the Fifteenth Article of War. P. 35 .
How does the bolded part apply in this case? If not, how does Quirin supply the justification for designating Padilla as an unlawful combatant?
Looking forward to any/all responses.
(Note: This is in no way intended to support Padilla's actions or his character.)
However, there are some similarities. US citizen involved. He has been declared an "enemy combatant." SCOTUS previously confirmed Exec authority to do same. So on and so on. Naturally it is not a carbon copy. Few cases are.
Evidence? I have none. But as the professor stated above-enemy combatants have fewer legal rights than ordinary citizen defendants in criminal cases. This is (at least according to DOD/DOJ) a case involving enemy combatants.
We are a nation at war. In times of war, extreme measures are taken. We only recently (8-9 years) learned the specificites of Slapton Sands. Soldiers (read:survivors!) were sworn to secrecy. Ditto for Leopoldville-only not to extreme of Slapton Sands. I know much more about my unit's movements in Vietnam now, than I did when there. Why? Intel and supporting records were pretty much all declassified circa 1994-5. It's a government thing.
Seems to be a misunderstanding-I am not justifying anything. It would little matter anyway. What I am saying is, that it appears to me, under the law, that AG Ashcroft is acting legally. You may not like it. I may not like it. Padilla damned sure doesn't like it! But I do not believe it to be illegal. Time will tell...
Surreptitious? Abdullah Al Muhajir
Discarding uniforms? Terrs don't wear them. In the old days, if a soldier discarded his uniform in enemy territory, he could be shot as a spy. Many Germans were, in the Ardennes.
Unlawful combatants? If so declared enemy combatant, President or Congress has authority to try them via military commission.
Not exactly spelled out in great detail by SCOTUS in Ex Parte Quirin, for future generations. Or "different wars" as we are told this one is. But most cases/rulings don't give future parameters, precisely anyway.
Bulls#it.
We were attacked last year in the opening battle of the war, and took heavy civilan casualties.
By your, ahem, "logic", if we received a massive nuclear attack that hit all of our major cities, we should be prohibited from launching a return attack, because there was no "formal" declaration of war, and thus, we were not "in a state of war."
You nitpicking hair-splitting pharasees make me nauseous.
I'd be real interested in seeing you sell that to Hollywood to make a movie about how to enforce your ideals in battlefield conditions.
"Soldier! You may NOT shoot that enemy combattant! He hasn't even been charged, let alone convicted!"
It would have to be a comedy. A bad comedy.
Sometimes.
Are you always so thouroughly uninformed?
One of Hamdis Writs of Habeus Corpus
Judicial review which is ongoing.
The Fourth Circuit disagrees with you.
Whats significant about this is that AlQaeda declared war on the US in 1993 at the WTC. That fact has gone right over your head ever since.
What "Rule of War" has been violated by Presdient Bush?
Article 5
Where, in the territory of a Party to the conflict, the latter is satisfied that an individual protected person is definitely suspected of or engaged in activities hostile to the security of the State, such individual person shall not be entitled to claim such rights and privileges under the present Convention as would, if exercised in the favour of such individual person, be prejudicial to the security of such State.
Where in occupied territory an individual protected person is detained as a spy or saboteur, or as a person under definite suspicion of activity hostile to the security of the Occupying Power, such person shall, in those cases where absolute military security so requires, be regarded as having forfeited rights of communication under the present Convention.
In each case, such persons shall nevertheless be treated with humanity, and in case of trial, shall not be deprived of the rights of fair and regular trial prescribed by the present Convention. They shall also be granted the full rights and privileges of a protected person under the present Convention at the earliest date consistent with the security of the State or Occupying Power, as the case may be.
The Rules of War recognises common sense, you apparently don't.
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.