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.
??? Come off it. What do you call this initiative? The only thing stopping that pair from launching an all-out assault on your rights is polling showing America's growing concern about their plans. And whenever that concern starts to spike, they launch another fear frenzy. Look for another smallpox/suitcase nuke/cyanide in the water /Iraqi WMD/anthrax beatup, coming soon in your New York Post.
We defeated the Germans and Japanese and the war was over. What will constitute the end of the War On Terror?
Post 61: Lincoln's key measure was the suspension of habeas corpus in September 1862. ... How is that any different than Ashcroft's desire to arrest and indefinitely detain suspected "terrorists"?
Looks like Ashcroft is doing what Lincoln did, contrary to post 52.
"Does the Constitution grant us any Liberty in our Bill of Rights (or elsewhere in the document)?"
If they answer yes, that is the wrong answer. The answer is no. Tell them,
"The Bill of Rights merely enumerates Liberties. We are 'endowed by our creator'. If one assumes that government can grant liberty, then one must assume government can take it away."
On Jerry Patterson's website, he explains this key idea in his Op Ed: "A Republic if We Can Keep It." Our luncheon speakers were inspirational and motivational. Noteworthy is that all these speakers have one common connection, and that connection is fighting for Constitutional Liberty.
John Lindt Walker (or whatever - I'm not from Marin) turned on America - that makes the fact that he was born and lived here null and void!
The left can't be bothered with the facts. Agenda is everything.
Who will surrender for "Terror"?
A precedent for holding an American citizen, no matter how odious a citizen, without due process.
Let me put it in the simplests terms possible.
If there is no hole, you can't be put in the hole. You seek out the nastiest, most reprehensible, most violent, ugliest, smelliest citizen possible and say, "This person needs to be put in a hole". You dig one and put him there.
Now, you have a hole, and you can be put in the hole. 
The war between the states and WWII could only last so long before there was a clear victor. How long can the war on terrorism last? How many kinds of terrorists can there be.
It's like cosigning a five year car note with your trusted friend or your son. Things start off rosey pink. . .
During WWII, a group of 8 Germans were dropped of in the U.S. to carry out espionage activities - except one of these Germans was actually a U.S. citizen. The courts upheld that they were the military's concern. THAT was the precedent to which you refer. They have due proccess - not that of a civilian criminal, but that of one carrying out acts of war against the U.S., while not falling under the criteria of the Geneva Conventions on War (Though the administration has decided to allow them the general protections anyway).
Next?
Oh yes he is, amigo. Our Aussie AG, Daryl Williams, has lifted most of Ashcroft's programs and tried to present them here as essential protections in the War On Terror. Or, as I'm increasingly coming to view it, the War of Terror. There's been a firestorm of protest and thank Heavens our AG hasn't been able to get much of his State vs the Citizen legislation enacted. Williams and other US allies look to the US for leadership on these issues, and Ashcroft is enabling foreign authoritarians in that way. What I still cannot get my head around is how Bush and Ashcroft, who started out with so much promise, and such great goodwill and gratitude from conservatives generally, have now turned on us like this. I thought I was cynical about the presidency during the Clinton era but the way these two are raping the hopes and dreams of those who voted them into office just takes the cake.
Again we have an accusation without evidence. None. Just a personal attack upon the men responsible for our military and law enforcement actions to keep us from having another 9/11.
What will you fearmongers say if/when there is another catastrophic attack--that the Bush administration wasn't doing enough??
3,000 dead innocents are enough. America responded tremendously after 12/7/41 with unity. The first Allied victory did not come until some months after, but America stayed the course--and that with a blatantly liberal, some may say socialist Roosevelt administration.
Now, with EARLY evidence of some battle victories, the panic buttons are being pushed regarding a CONSERVATIVE administration. Thanks be to GOD these shaky knees are few and far between, and thanks TOO that these shaky knees weren't around in previous generations.
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.