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

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

[DugwayDuke]

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

"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." -dark_lord

That's totally irrelevent to the definition of an enemy combatant. The term is quite clear in it's meaning. So quit draging red herrings through this forum.

A President like HRC can make whatever claims she wishes and will not be deterred one iota by what we do here and now. So quit trying to scare the kids and old folks with ghost stories about what might be.

Got that?

Got that?

[exodus]

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.

To: HaveGunWillTravel
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 The 14th corrected and superceded Dred Scott.
# 103 by

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

The Constitution is just a piece of hemp paper, full of words written by men.

Government recognition has nothing to do with freedom.

Rights are God-given, and any governmental violation of freedom is tyranny.

If the Constitution said that water was not water, water would still be water.

[dark_lord]

Sigh.
Look - the point I am trying to make is that if an "enemy combatant" is anyone aiding and abetting a "hostile entity" during a time of "war" which we are currently apparently in, if we are defining "hostile entity" as Al Qaeda, I am fine with it.
But. I don't think the government has been all that clear. And my point is, for that reason, this "war" will continue to exist until another administration takes power (it took 30 years to hunt down the da**ed Red Brigades in Europe). You want Hillary Clinton as Commander in Chief (it could happen) and able to define who is and who is not an "enemy combatant"?
Okay, maybe it's a ghost story. Maybe my concerns are completely groundless. Mea culpa.

[jwalsh07]

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."

Jonathan Turley made the "camp" remarks up out of whole cloth and Nat Hentoff based an entire column on it. Amazingly I watched Turley eat his words in an interview on FoxNews. I guess Nat missed it.

[exodus]

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.

To: mhking
"...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..."
# 105 by marron

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

Congress HAS NOT recognized that a State of War exists.

Official Congressional recognition of war would require a Declaration of War. Congress hasn't done that.

Congress authorised the use of force against terrorists. That's not the same as a war.

We are embroiled in a police action, not a war.

[DugwayDuke]

I share your concerns about the abuse of power that might occurr under HRC, but I really don't see that we can construct any mechanism that would prevent her from misusing power should she be elected. You know as well as I do that she would distort any definition of "enemy combatant" if she choose to do so. Consequently, we will have to deal with today's problems today and worry about problems with Hillary when that time comes. I simply cannot see tying ourselves into a knot worrying about Hillary.

[justshe]

GWB does NOT need to get a new authorization. The following is STILL in effect. I think it is politically expedient however...for him to involve Congress.
__________________________________________________________________________

The War Powers Resolution states that the President's powers as Commander-in-Chief to introduce U.S. forces into hostilities or imminent hostilities are exercised only pursuant to (1) a declaration of war; (2) specific statutory authorization; or (3) a national emergency created by an attack on the United States or its forces.

It requires the President in every possible instance to consult with Congress before introducing American armed forces into hostilities or imminent hostilities unless there has been a declaration of war or other specific congressional authorization.


One Hundred Seventh Congress
of the

United States of America

AT THE FIRST SESSION
Begun and held at the City of Washington on Wednesday,

the third day of January, two thousand and one

Joint Resolution

To authorize the use of United States Armed Forces against those responsible for the recent attacks launched against the United States.

Whereas, on September 11, 2001, acts of treacherous violence were committed against the United States and its citizens; and

Whereas, such acts render it both necessary and appropriate that the United States exercise its rights to self-defense and to protect United States citizens both at home and abroad; and

Whereas, in light of the threat to the national security and foreign policy of the United States posed by these grave acts of violence; and

Whereas, such acts continue to pose an unusual and extraordinary threat to the national security and foreign policy of the United States; and

Whereas, the President has authority under the Constitution to take action to deter and prevent acts of international terrorism against the United States: Now, therefore, be it

Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

This joint resolution may be cited as the `Authorization for Use of Military Force'.

SEC. 2. AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF UNITED STATES ARMED FORCES.

(a) IN GENERAL- That the President is authorized to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons, in order to prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the United States by such nations, organizations or persons.

(b) War Powers Resolution Requirements-

(1) SPECIFIC STATUTORY AUTHORIZATION- Consistent with section 8(a)(1) of the War Powers Resolution, the Congress declares that this section is intended to constitute specific statutory authorization within the meaning of section 5(b) of the War Powers Resolution.

(2) APPLICABILITY OF OTHER REQUIREMENTS- Nothing in this resolution supercedes any requirement of the War Powers Resolution.

Speaker of the House of Representatives.

Vice President of the United States and

President of the Senate

[exodus]

To: exodus; Avoiding_Sulla
Was Sulla a Roman 'neo'? ;^)

# 113 by headsonpikes

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

In a way, yes.

Sulla believed in the idea of Rome, but he thought that Rome should be Rome on his terms.

[exodus]

To: HaveGunWillTravel
"...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.
# 114 by mhking

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

All drug laws are based upon a corruption of the Commerce Power.

Neither Federal, State, nor Local government can Constitutionally outlaw any drug.

[eleni121]

During the Cold War the CIA (and other agencies) in order to protect this nation from wholesale destruction by the Soviets commited many many extra constitutional and subversive activities. This war is just as dangerous maybe even more so.

This war mimics the Cold War in many ways and Ashcoroft is rightfully interpreting the laws that bind us in a way that both protect us from further terrorist attacks and protect our constitutional liberties. He and this administration deserve phenomenal credit for balancing the need to defend our naiton and the need to defend our liberties.

[mhking]

Rights are God-given, and any governmental violation of freedom is tyranny.

If the Constitution said that water was not water, water would still be water.

In the eyes of the law of the land; in the eyes of the men who created the law of the land, black men were not men. At most they were considered 3/5 of a person. Black men were not people. The Dred Scott decision reaffirmed this. The 14th Amendment removed that distinction.

Certainly our rights are God-given, but we were viewed differently prior to the Emancipation. No amount of declaration can change that. In the eyes of America, we were not people at that time. Where our rights were granted was immaterial at the time.

There is a distinct difference between man's law and moral law. Morally, we always have been men with God-given rights. Legally, this was simply not so.

[mhking]

Congress authorised the use of force against terrorists. That's not the same as a war.

We are embroiled in a police action, not a war.

A formal declaration is not needed. There is precedence. Korea. Vietnam. Desert Storm. These "police actions" were wars - undeclared ones, but wars nonetheless. This is no different.

[mhking]

All drug laws are based upon a corruption of the Commerce Power.

Neither Federal, State, nor Local government can Constitutionally outlaw any drug.

Then, again, the federal government has no business being involved in the war on drugs.

[exodus]

To: rdb3
"...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."
# 115 by HaveGunWillTravel

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

Whether the author of the article is a socialst makes no difference as to whether Ashcroft's policies are socialist.

Searches without warrants; detention without trial; breaking into private homes without warning; concentration camps; officially sanctioned murder; all those actions are what you would expect from a tyrannical dictator.

Words mean things, and our government sure does talk pretty. However, actions speak louder than words.

[hinckley buzzard]

Johnathan Turley is a Constitutional idiot and so is Nat Hentoff.

See Article I, Section 9, second paragraph.

[exodus]

There is a distinct difference between man's law and moral law. Morally, (black men) always have been men with God-given rights. Legally, this was simply not so.
# 151 by mhking

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

Men are men, no matter their race, and all men have rights, even if those rights are being infringed upon.

If you're a slave being beaten, you have the right to kill to defend yourself, even though a corrupt government will execute you for asserting that right.

Government can't take your rights away, but they can make asserting your rights downright hazardous to your health.

The purpose of the Founding Fathers was to protect all free men from the power of government.

Everyone realized, even then, that slaves were men. The problem was that slaves were not FREE men. Slaves were considered to be "in bondage," so just as a man in prison was not free, so a slave was not free.

All men, by virtue of being men, should be free.

Even in the United States no man, regardless of race, is safe from the threat of slavery without a Constitutional protection against slavery.

What we need is a Constitutional Amendment outlawing the practice of slavery.

[exodus]

Congress authorised the use of force against terrorists. That's not the same as a war. We are embroiled in a police action, not a war.

To: exodus
A formal declaration is not needed. There is precedence. Korea. Vietnam. Desert Storm. These "police actions" were wars - undeclared ones, but wars nonetheless. This is no difference.
# 152 by mhking

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

"Precedence" does not make law. Precedence is a tool used by judges to avoid thinking.

Legislation makes law.

The Constitution says that Congress has the power to declare war. The 10th Amendment says that government cannot usurp powers not specifically granted to it by the people.

President Bush declared war on terrorism. That is a usurpation of power, and illegal under our code of law.

Congress gave the President the power to use force against terrorism. Congress DID NOT declare war.

There is a difference.

[exodus]

"...Then, again, the federal government has no business being involved in the war on drugs."
# 153 by mhking

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

Neither do State or Local government have business conducting any "war" on drugs.

[VaBthang4]

I agree with you....I would add that having not read further down in this thread, I am certain there are a grip of Losertarians that completely agree with the Liberal nitwit professor.

[ladyinred]

Ridiculous liberal rant/lies/read/propaganda.