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

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

[HaveGunWillTravel]

My last point to you is that you should sympathize with the plight of free men despite the relative plight of black slaves because the plight of free men has a direct bearing on the plight of less free men. The principles of liberty in this country are what gave rise to the emancipation in the first place, not Lincoln's tyranny. To trample anyone's liberty is not good for anyone. Being elevated to being a free man is not as good when being a free man means less.

[dead]

enough evidence stacked against them to

What evidence are you talking about? You've already agreed that the government does not need to show evidence. You are willing to take the government's word that they are "enemy combatants."

We who call for an airing of evidence and some formal charges, before incarcerating an American citizen for life, are "with the terrorists" apparently.

It's difficult to argue with somebody who changes their position constantly.

And the point remains that profiling people before you search their luggage is not IN ANY WAY comparable to locking them up forever without lawyers or evidence or even charges leveled against them.

Your attempt to equate the two is asinine in the extreme.

[dcwusmc]

Good post and quite true. Trouble is, who's listening? You preach to the choir... at least until they call YOU an enemy combatant. I mean, you talk agin the gubmint and just LOOK at your screenname: haveGUNwilltravel... HORRIBLE beyond belief!

[Eagle Eye]

Grownups make the moves that preserve freedom, children live in the 'it can't happen to me' world.

The Patriot Act and CFR are Constitutional abominations and diminish our freedoms. Bush and Ashcroft are behind those acts.

I'd place you in the camp (correct me if I'm wrong) that trusts the administration and its decisions simply because you don't think that the force of government can or will be used against you personally.

No matter how you shade it, taking freedoms from us doesn't make us more free or more secure.

[Eagle Eye]

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.

Just remember that the American public was assured that military tribunals would NOT be used against American citizens. Didn't take long for that promise to be broken.

What is the next promise to be quickly broken?

When will it be that anyone who isn't 100% in support of Bush is "against us" and becomes labelled an enemy combatant or enemy sympathizer?

IMO, staunch Bush supporters are throwing grease on the slippery slope.

[Republic]

To: dead

dead-in a war, when unsuspecting innocents can be killed in mass numbers by vicious, unrelenting nutcases who are banded together in a group driven by hatred, the EVIDENCE RULES must be looked at with a lighter touch.
JUST like this war is unlike ANYOTHER, so is the rounding up of the enemy. If you cannot think in terms of changing the rules in order to protect our republic, instead, insisting on adhering to the excellent rules for proof that we are blessed to live with UNDER NORMAL CIRCUMSTANCES, then will you go down proud that you were unbending in your dedication to man made evidenciary rules even thos COMMON SENSE spoke to the threat, even as a city near you is melted down like so much wax?

[dead]

You do support the government's right to lock up American citizens without evidence, lawyers, trials, or even charges.

Thank you for clarifying that.

You are a little difficult to decipher at times.

[rdb3]

HGWT, that makes sense. Now I understand.

Very good.

[DugwayDuke]

"the fundamental problem is that we don't have a clear definitions of "enemy combatant"."

Which part of "enemy combatant" do you not understand?

[Avoiding_Sulla]

Was Sulla a Roman 'neo'? ;^)

No. IMO, Lucius Cornelius Sulla would best be described a Roman "paleo." However, that would be in surface appearance only.

He was at least as corrupt as any of his fellow patricians, only more ruthless and lucky (his chosen cognomen was "Felix" because he knew how fortunate he'd been).

In our current leadership, Clinton was by far more in line with Sulla's personal behavior -- Billy-Jeff having all of Sulla's slime with none of his spine. It was Sulla who broke all the rules for ostensibly noble gain, who belied that intention when he retired to his countryside to wallow in his gains. That left the field open -- with a whole new path to power having been blazed and decadence been descended to -- for even more ruthless men to follow.

While Clinton was no Sulla, and neither is Bush, unless our society finds someway to ressurrect itself, reaffirmed with basic principles, our Sulla is coming and our form of government doomed. Think Roman Empire and its excesses, especially immediately following Augustus.

[185JHP]

To paraphrase Brandeis: "(Some of) the greatest dangers to liberty lie in the insidious encroachment by men of zeal, well-meaning, but without understanding."

[headsonpikes]

I meant my query as a teasing jest; thank you for responding.

If there are parallels, then I believe we are in that period between the 'left-wing' Gracchi and Marius, and the 'right-wing' Sulla, the period of Social Wars.

Of course, in the wake of Sulla, careerists overwhelmed the State, leading to Triumvirate, Dictatorship, and Imperator.

Can we, unlike the Romans, preserve Constitutional government?

[Houmatt]

Finally. Someone who has presented fact and precedent over hypocrisy and rhetoric.

Don't expect the seditionists wrapped in the flag herein to respond in a matter that resembles rational thought, if they respond at all.

It is funny, but do you realize if the attitude these seditionists have were prevalent during WWII, most, if not all of us, would be here today?

[exodus]

To: SkyRat
# To: exodus
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.
# 107 by paulklenk

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

A President who can declare war without Congressional involvement, and over Congressional objections, is a dictator.

Read this article from today's New York Times. --
Bush Promises to Seek Congressional Approval on Iraq

I'll summarize the article.

Earlier today, President Bush met with Congressional leaders to explain why he wanted to attack Saddam Hussein, and to tell them that he wouldn't attack Iraq without "seeking" their approval first.

However, he wouldn't say if he would abide by their opinion. Bush said, "One of the things, I made it very clear to the members here, is that doing nothing about that serious threat is not an option for the United States."

In other words, Bush, as President, would decide if the United States goes to war or not. If Congress wants to, they can support his decision. If Congress doesn't support his decision, too bad.

When a reporter asked Bush if Congress had the authority to "veto" an attack against Iraq, Bush changed the subject.

[balrog666]

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...

No. You, and sheep like you are the problem.

And when the next Clinton is President and has her crooked mad-feminista cabinet in office, and her crooked attorney general to divert any investigations, and her crooked FBI & Homeland security stooges to enforce her will on the sheeple, what will you think of the law then? Will you trust your freedom, your life, the lives of your wife and children to such creatures? What will you do when they come to confiscate your guns, or your SUV, or your property?

[weikel]

I trust Cheney and Rumsfeld. I don't trust Bush and sure as hell don't trust Ridge or Ashcroft.

[dark_lord]

Which part of "enemy combatant" do you not understand?
The part about where a DemocRAT Attorney General like Janet Reno can say - why you have a bunch of guns and ammo, make postings on an anti-government forum, hang out with a bunch of known right wingers - you look like a bona fida terrorist to me (armed, part of a group, anti-government views (as defined by the AJ)) - so I guess you're an enemy combatant.
Got that?

[christine]

that is very dangerous thinking. republicans are not always going to be in office (not that it makes all that much difference anyway). all americans and politicians would do well to keep this in mind:

"The key to understanding the American system is to imagine that you have the power to make nearly any law you want. But your worst enemy will be the one to enforce it." ~ Rick Cook

[dark_lord]

With a congressional finding that we are in a state of war, the need to subpoena witnesses and hold hearings and serve warrants, all falls away. If the military command believes you to be an enemy combatant, whether you are a citizen of this or any other country, brother you are done for. You will be killed, if possible. Anyone standing near you when the attack comes, whether man, woman, or child, civilian or otherwise, innocent or otherwise, will almost certainly be killed as well.
I believe that you are incorrect, thankfully. Because if you were correct, then we would be under martial law already.
We already have an "authorization" from Congress to conduct military operations, which to my mind is recognition that we are at war. Ergo, a declaration of war. It does not need to be a declaration of war upon a specific enemy, simply a congressional finding that we are, in fact, at war.
The clear problem here is that this is being viewed as:
(a) A war unlike any other war - e.g., not a war against a nation state. Against a nation state, we can fight them until we get a surrender from some controlling authority in that state, and we can enforce that surrender.
(b) A defined end to this "war". So - exactly when is this "war" over? When we take out Iraq? Syria? Iran? Saudi Arabia? No - those are nation states. The terrorist infrastructure is more like a multinational corporation. As long as they have funding and dissatisfied 3rd worlders who are willing to kill themselves to kill us, we can't force an end to this "war".
So I, for one, am not eager to declare this a "war", because if we really do that you will see all your civil liberties disappear over the next 10 or so years - until we really do live in a police state.
You see if we do declare this a war without any end point (e.g. in WWII it was the unconditional surrender of the Japaneses and the Nazis), we will find our constitutional rights gone without an end condition to get them back!
So they will be gone permanently.

[<1/1,000,000th%]

YMCA...

YMCA...