Posted on 09/04/2002 12:22:02 PM PDT by dead
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.
Fair enough. The exaggerations are improper, I agree. I just hate having to admit that a liberal is on the right side of an issue.
What amazes me is that I'll bet most of these people would have screamed loudly, demanding armed insurrection if this had been proposed under Clinton/Reno.
Mr. Franklin, we failed to keep our Republic. Our deepest apologies to you and every individual who gave his life in defense of the ideal to which you and the rest of the Founding Fathers gave birth. We have killed it.
Nossir. All you are reading is the total RINO-ization of this forum. JimRob still has the control and power to take it back from the RINOs. But if not, FR will be endorsing and applauding the likes of Olympia Snowe and John McCain, in time.
What amazes me is that I'll bet most of these people would have screamed loudly, demanding armed insurrection if this had been proposed under Clinton/Reno.
Absolutely -- but not because of love of Constitution, only for partisan gain. You have to understand, it was not a Freedom/Slavery thing, it was a Republican/Democrat thing. I didn't understand until recently.
Since about 5 or 6 months ago, the RINO's were given free reign here, and the Conservatives were not backed by moderator and forum owner alike.
It happens. Things change. So be it.
Funny.
You sure loved him when he was stridently criticizing Clinton.
Sounds like your position has moderated a little in the last few days.
Good.
RIGHT! How simple that is!!
(fast forward six years)
President Hillary Clinton: "Now that the War On Guns has been launched, all gun owners, or those who have ever argued for firearms ownership rights, are enemy combatants, and will be interred indefinitely without being charged with a crime. So if you see a gun, or know of a so-called 'second amendment' supporter, call 1-800-TYRANNY today!"
Funny.
You sure liked him when he was severely critical of President Clinton.
If you now admit that Hamdi and Padilla are getting there Habeas Corpus rights I guess you have learned something.
That's good.
To the contrary! I found his views on past presidents,(which he does for a living) objectionable for the most part. I have watched him on C-span programs numerous times. His views about WWII and people of that era are also flawed. I have seem him taken to task several times.
I don't even recall what he said if anything about Clinton. I did not see that.
This, then, would be consistent with the Declaration, even though the Declaration doesn't carry with it the force of law.
WE hold these Truths to be self-evident, that all Men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness -- That to secure these Rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just Powers from the Consent of the Governed, that whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these Ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its Foundation on such Principles, and organizing its Powers in such Form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.
Break down your post. If your rights are granted by the government they can be taken by said government - therefore they are not protected by said government.
With the utmost respect, I disagree with the second part of your post as well, which clearly ignores the plain English of part three of your post:
WE hold these Truths to be self-evident, that all Men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness -- That to secure these Rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just Powers from the Consent of the Governed, that whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these Ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its Foundation on such Principles, and organizing its Powers in such Form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.
Let's look at portions of this quote:
Life, Liberty and the Pusuit of Happiness - These principles are embodied in the First Eight Amendments of the Bill of Rights. The right to speak and worship freely. The Right to bear Arms. The right to the privacy of your home and to refuse access to agents of the state. The right to be free from unwarranted intrusions into your home, your papers and your privacy. The right to acquire property in your name and be free from self-incrimination. The right to counsel and to be tried by your peers, not the government.
...deriving their just Powers from the Consent of the Governed, that whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these Ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it,... - Such principles are emobodied in the Ninth and Tenth Amendments - where it was specified that any powers not specifically delegated to the US Government were retained by the individual States (if enumerated in their individual Constitutions) or to the people. (if not)
Don't ever make the mistake that the Constitution grants you anything other than the ability to assert against your government the Rights given to you by virture of your existance. The ONLY legal right the Constitution grants you is the Right to assert your inalienable Rights against the Government. The BOR is merely an enumeration of some of those Rights. The Constitution itself is the grant of certain limited authority to the Federal Government by the individual States - no more.
God gave you your Rights according to the individuals that started this Country.
I think we're like two blind men at opposite ends of an elephant, and being asked to describe it. We have different descriptions, but we're talking about the same thing.
The rights enshrined in the Constitution are indeed God-given and unalienable. But to secure these rights, that's where government comes into play. The rest I was sure everyone knew.
The problem is that he is a liberal. There is no way a liberal can talk very long without pissin me off.
That is all there is to it.
Tonight, UNSPUN with AnnaZ and Mercuria!
6pm pdt/9pm edt
THE CULTURE WAR: WHAT ARE WE GOING TO HAVE TO DO TO WIN IT?
with special guest, reluctant culture warrior,
Master Sergeant Giddens, USAF
Plus...
BONEHEADED LIE-BERAL QUOTES
COMMIE RAT BA$TARD OF THE WEEK
Click HERE to LISTEN LIVE while you FReep!
Click HERE for the RadioFR Chat Room!
Miss a show? Click HERE for the RadioFR Archives!
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.