General Ashcroft's Detention Camps: Time to Call for His Resignation

Village Voice ^ | September 4 - September 10, 2002 | Nat Hentoff

[HaveGunWillTravel]

Slaves were already freed by the COnstitution. The slave states merely ignored the Constitution.

Agreed. All men are born free and equal. Any violation of their natural rights as men by a government or other men is an illegitemate act of tyranny. I don't have a big problem with Lincoln. I just think he was a tyrant. He did a lot of good though. I'd certainly rather have Bush for a tyrant than Clinton.

[mhking]

Oops - this one should have been for you. My fingers are working faster than my brain...http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/744575/posts?page=97#97

[mhking]

All men are born free and equal. Any violation of their natural rights as men by a government or other men is an illegitemate act of tyranny.

Problem was that this was not established in the Constitution. Blacks were not recognized as men, and this assumption was upheld by the Dred Scott SCOTUS decision. The 14th corrected and superceded Dred Scott.

[exodus]

To: dead
I'd much rather trust my freedom to Ashcroft, Bush, Cheney and company than to the sort of folks who decry that some people must be inconvenienced for the good of the many instead of the other way around. They don't seem to understand that THEY are a large part of the problem...
# 3 by trebb

*************************

Yes, THEY don't understand that the freedom our soldiers have historically fought to defend has now become outdated.

THEY don't understand that it's perfectly alright to have a dictator, as long as the dictator is a Republican.

[marron]

If Congress has already recognized a state of war exists through it's war powers and military action authorization last year, then the remaining point is moot.

I'm not sure you and I are disagreeing.

If a state of war exists, and if Congress has recognized that a state of war exists, by whatever means, then the gloves are off, and anyone considered an enemy combatant is fair game. Whether this is a good thing or not becomes moot. This is reality.

Mistakes will be made, innocent people will be killed alongside the guilty, and we will all have to live with whatever we have done. And the historians will sort it out later.

[mrsmith]

Dead, though we plainly differ on the treatment of renegades during war- or "citizen enemy combatants" to use the PC phrase- I am concerned that their Constitutionally guaranteed petition for habeas corpus get a fair hearing.

As Hamdi and Padilla's petitions go through the courts there is a dispute over how much proof the courts can require of the military to back up their designations.
I would support congress passing legislation that addressed that issue- especially for those captured on US soil.

[paulklenk]

In what way is Bush a dictator? I'm no Bush-bot, but I'd really like to know what he's done to deserve that epithet.

[wtc911]

James Ridgeway, a regular at the VV, wrote often about Waco, the event itself as well as books and documentary films dealing with the subject. He's only one writer but the VV took Waco on through him.

[HaveGunWillTravel]

I'm saying that, while in the process of freeing the slaves, Lincoln trampled everyone's rights and exceeded his legitimate authority as president. Perhaps the end justified the means, perhaps is didn't. It is commonly believed that the slaves were going to be freed soon anyway. Regardless, Lincoln didn't have the right to throw people in jail without a trial, he didn't have the right to shut down the press, and he didn't have the right to declare war on free states without a fully represented congress authorizing it that was not under duress. The point being, (going back to my original statement), Lincoln tyrannized as much as he freed. You can have it both ways. You can free slaves without reducing free men to subjects at the same time. This is what I'm saying. I know that this has nothing directly to do with the article. My original comment was in response to one of yours which as a response to someone else's.

[HaveGunWillTravel]

Good point. I'm not looking to the constitution as the source of anyone's rights, though. I'm looking to the creator.

[HaveGunWillTravel]

as far as the war on drugs: I don't think the constitution should be amended lightly. I also don't think the government should assume power reserved for the people. If the wod does not require an amendment, why was the constitution amended to allow for prohibition? Did they amend it unnessecarily?

[HaveGunWillTravel]

Your point about section 3 assumes that free states trying to seceed were guilty of sedition while Lincoln wasn't. Who was the true enemy of the constitution?

[headsonpikes]

Was Sulla a Roman 'neo'? ;^)

[mhking]

Did they amend it unnessecarily?

Yep. Without question. That is a power that should be reserved for the states.

Personally, I think that the WOD needs to be suspended, period. If states want to prosecute, then they need to lay out the resources to do so. Leave the Feds out of it. Now if there's an issue of national security that is tied to it (i.e., the Colombian situation), then it needs to be dealt with on that level. This half-in, half-out game that they've been playing is nothing but a waste of time, resources and money.

I'm not saying to legalize drugs. But I am saying that the onus belongs with the states, not the federal government - just as the onus with alcohol regulation is a state's rights issue.

[HaveGunWillTravel]

As for the article: My original comment to you was in support of the point that you were replying to that suggested that anything Ashcroft may do will still be minor compared to previous excused breaches of the constitution by past presidents. Not that I excuse any of it, mind you. But it would still be minor. And, as the first poster that you replied to implied, the lefty author seems to ignore this in his attack on Ashcroft. I agree with the author that Ashcroft may be an enemy of the constitution in his own way, but I also see the authors bias and selectivity in singling out Ashcroft.

[mhking]

Your point about section 3 assumes that free states trying to seceed were guilty of sedition while Lincoln wasn't. Who was the true enemy of the constitution?

Legally? The individuals in those states were.

Morally? That's a much more nebulous situation where Lincoln could be equally culpable. Then again, there is the golden rule: he who has the gold makes the rules.

I don't claim to be anything more than a (below?) average constitutional scholar. And that's why I prefaced my answer with "If I'm understanding correctly" types of rejoinders. I'm definitely open for discussion on it...

[HaveGunWillTravel]

There you go then. The war on drugs is an area in which the us government has exceeded its lawful authority. Tyranny.

[HaveGunWillTravel]

Nice chatting. I have to go. Later.

[AmishDude]

Is anyone else troubled by the fact that some of the same people who think Castro ain't such a bad fellow are the same ones accusing Ashcroft of civil rights violations?

I am. I'm very, very troubled.

[Republic]

Ohhhhhhhhhhhh... so PROFILING is ok with you, but sequestering people who promise to do harm or who have enough evidence stacked against them to make them stand out as subversive or willing to do harm to innocents should not be held until further notice? Hmmm. Isn't racial profiling anti-constitutional? Many think so. Isn't it a infringement on free movement due to discrimination tactics? And you are ok with it? But not ok on holding those with highly suspicious tags regarding terrorist activity? Hmmm. Interesting.