You left out that any powers he establishes in the Justice Dept will carry over to his successor, who may not be a "deeply religious, patriotic American". 
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.
As I said Esam hamdi is about as much an American as I'm Japanese! Ashcroft's "scheme" is a Solomon like decision made with all the facts which were conveniently left out of Turley's Op Ed ! I lived in Europe for 3 years but that does not make me a European! Nor am I British for having lived in London for 3 years. Ashcroft knows what he is doing. And those who look closely know he is no threat to our Constitutional Rights.
1. When is this war going to end?
2. When will our liberties return?
3. Who decides when we get them back or when the war ends?
4. When Germany rose to power under Hitler some did not complain because they were not "Jews" "unionists" etc. Then they were taken to the camps. What prevents YOU from being charged and held without trial and without access to an attorney?
5. Who decides who and who does not deserve the rights guaranteed in the Bill of Rights? And who will decide when Bush and Ashcroft are out of office?
6. What precedent are we setting and how can we argue against it when someone else is in power that we do not trust?
The argument that there is no state of war because the Regress hasn't declared war is historically fatuous at best.
Sorry, officer, I must have left my license at home. ;^)
Since you asked.....
Ashcroft, while presenting himself as a moral person of faith who will always do the right thing and seek justice,disbanded the campaign finance task force...which means Chinagate...which means our national security. Or, does Ashcroft just get top pick which aspects of national security he will sanctify with his blessing.
Ashcroft sent away Robert Conrad, the head of the task force. It was Conrad, you may recall, who told JReno to appoint an IC to investigate Gore.
Still wearing his righteous hat, Ashcroft signed off on the deal that fined the shareholders of Loral $millions while agreeing to let the criminals go free.
Ashcroft, snactimonious as always, chose to ignore government corruption in the matters of the lynx fur scandal and the BIA backdating scandals....though one would expect a truely moral, righteous, dedicated public servant to pursue corruption in the government he has swore to serve, 'so help me God'.
Moving along, he decided to overturn the will of the people of a sovereign state by his own fiat, even though that will had been clearly expressed in referendum, dangerously to the concept of liberty. (I'm speaking about Oregon, for those who may not have been paying attention.) He decided to block release of information of the abuses in the Boston FBI office, where the criminals are protected and the innocent incarcerated.
His current plan would allow him to incarcerate you at his whim. Oh, yes, he is a both a sanctimonious fraud and a dangerous man, alright.
You left out that any powers he establishes in the Justice Dept will carry over to his successor, who may not be a "deeply religious, patriotic American".
Did you forget Ashcroft will not hold his post for life? Do you think that those powers will be rescinded when he leaves? Do you think?
Well, Randy Weaver was a gun law breaking militia man plotting to overthrow the US. Or so will say the next Democratic President who uses this scary tactic that Ashcroft is using.
Here is the smell test for a law when your party is in power. Would you like the other side to use it? If you trust Janet Reno to decide which Americans are to be deprived of their bill of rights, be my guest and support Ashcroft's assault on our constitution.
OTOH, it is a bit discomforting to think that enemy combatants might get OJ's jurors.
Do you expect Ashcroft to hold office for life?
Yes or No.
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.