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

Jonathan Turley is a professor of constitutional and public-interest law at George Washington University Law School in D.C. He is also a defense attorney in national security cases and other matters, writes for a number of publications, and is often on television. He and I occasionally exchange leads on civil liberties stories, but I learn much more from him than he does from me.

For example, a Jonathan Turley column in the national edition of the August 14 Los Angeles Times ("Camps for Citizens: Ashcroft's Hellish Vision") begins:

"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." Actually, ever since General Ashcroft pushed the U.S. Patriot Act through an overwhelmingly supine Congress soon after September 11, he has subverted more elements of the Bill of Rights than any attorney general in American history.

Under the Justice Department's new definition of "enemy combatant"—which won the enthusiastic approval of the president and Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld—anyone defined as an "enemy combatant," very much including American citizens, can be held indefinitely by the government, without charges, a hearing, or a lawyer. In short, incommunicado.

Two American citizens—Yaser Esam Hamdi and Jose Padilla—are currently locked up in military brigs as "enemy combatants." (Hamdi is in solitary in a windowless room.) As Harvard Law Professor Lawrence Tribe said on ABC's Nightline (August 12):

"It bothers me that the executive branch is taking the amazing position that just on the president's say-so, any American citizen can be picked up, not just in Afghanistan, but at O'Hare Airport or on the streets of any city in this country, and locked up without access to a lawyer or court just because the government says he's connected somehow with the Taliban or Al Qaeda. That's not the American way. It's not the constitutional way. . . . And no court can even figure out whether we've got the wrong guy."

In Hamdi's case, the government claims it can hold him for interrogation in a floating navy brig off Norfolk, Virginia, as long as it needs to. When Federal District Judge Robert Doumar asked the man from the Justice Department how long Hamdi is going to be locked up without charges, the government lawyer said he couldn't answer that question. The Bush administration claims the judiciary has no right to even interfere.

Now more Americans are also going to be dispossessed of every fundamental legal right in our system of justice and put into camps. Jonathan Turley reports that Justice Department aides to General Ashcroft "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."

It should be noted that Turley, who tries hard to respect due process, even in unpalatable situations, publicly defended Ashcroft during the latter's turbulent nomination battle, which is more than I did.

Again, in his Los Angeles Times column, Turley tries to be fair: "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." (Emphasis added.)

Turley insists that "the proposed camp plan should trigger immediate Congressional hearings and reconsideration of Ashcroft's fitness for important office. Whereas Al Qaeda is a threat to the lives of our citizens, Ashcroft has become a clear and present threat to our liberties." (Emphasis added.)

On August 8, The Wall Street Journal, which much admires Ashcroft on its editorial pages, reported that "the Goose Creek, South Carolina, facility that houses [Jose] Padilla—mostly empty since it was designated in January to hold foreigners captured in the U.S. and facing military tribunals—now has a special wing that could be used to jail about 20 U.S. citizens if the government were to deem them enemy combatants, a senior administration official said." The Justice Department has told Turley that it has not denied this story. And space can be found in military installations for more "enemy combatants."

But once the camps are operating, can General Ashcroft be restrained from detaining—not in these special camps, but in regular lockups—any American investigated under suspicion of domestic terrorism under the new, elastic FBI guidelines for criminal investigations? From page three of these Ashcroft terrorism FBI guidelines:

"The nature of the conduct engaged in by a [terrorist] enterprise will justify an inference that the standard [for opening a criminal justice investigation] is satisfied, even if there are no known statements by participants that advocate or indicate planning for violence or other prohibited acts." (Emphasis added.) That conduct can be simply "intimidating" the government, according to the USA Patriot Act.

The new Steven Spielberg-Tom Cruise movie, Minority Report, shows the government, some years hence, imprisoning "pre-criminals" before they engage in, or even think of, terrorism. That may not be just fiction, folks.

Returning to General Ashcroft's plans for American enemy combatants, an August 8 New York Times editorial—written before those plans were revealed—said: "The Bush administration seems to believe, on no good legal authority, that if it calls citizens combatants in the war on terrorism, it can imprison them indefinitely and deprive them of lawyers. This defiance of the courts repudiates two centuries of constitutional law and undermines the very freedoms that President Bush says he is defending in the struggle against terrorism."

Meanwhile, as the camps are being prepared, the braying Terry McAuliffe and the pack of Democratic presidential aspirants are campaigning on corporate crime, with no reference to the constitutional crimes being committed by Bush and Ashcroft. As Supreme Court Justice Louis Brandeis prophesied: "The greatest menace to freedom is an inert people." And an inert Democratic leadership. See you in a month, if I'm not an Ashcroft camper.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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?

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.

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?

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?

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.

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?

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?

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.

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.