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

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

[dead]

Is this the writing of a man who thinks “Castro ain't such a bad fellow”?

However much his Cuban father loves him, his son -- in mind and soul, if not body -- belongs, after all, to the Cuban state.

Katie Couric, NBC's prominent political scientist, speaks sardonically of those who do not want our illustrious attorney general to send Elian to a place without the right to dissent. They must, she said, "be talking about Miami.

Some of those people in Miami who appall Couric with their zeal have experienced -- as she has not -- what Pascal Fontaine describes in the section on Cuba in "The Black Book of Communism" (Harvard University Press):

"To control the population, the Direccion Special del Ministerio del Interior (DSMI) recruits chivatos (informers) by the thousand. The DSMI works in three different fields: One section keeps a file on every Cuban citizen; another keeps track of public opinion; the third, in charge of the `ideological line,' keeps an eye on the church and its various congregations through infiltration."

The U.S. clergy who have so ardently supported the blood rights of Elian's father have not mentioned a report in the April 10 issue of Editor & Publisher about the press freedoms that readers and writers enjoy in Cuba:

"A favorite tactic is placing reporters under house arrest to prevent them from covering events that could prove embarrassing to the government. Upwards of two dozen journalist were subjected to that treatment in the past six months."

Che Guevara's laughter reverberates as I listen to the passionate indictments of those of us who are so cruel as to not understand the heartfelt wisdom of Janet Reno: "The law is very clear. A child who's lost his mother belongs with the sole surviving parent."

Even when the ultimate parent is Big Brother? On April 18, the United Nations Human Rights Commission condemned Cuba for its "continued violation of human rights and fundamental freedoms."

But now the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals has ruled that, despite Clinton and Reno, Elian will finally have his due-process day in court, and may yet live in freedom.

- Nat Hentoff "Elian's Human Rights" 4/24/00

[Cold Heat]

Turley is a turd whose face on my TV initiates a immediate shut down and re-boot procedure!(commonly known as channel changing)

He is a whiny liberal blowhard who pretends to be a historian.

[Lord_Baltar]

Wow, and I suppose you didn't think the Clintonistas were pathetic when they trusted them blindly?

Sir/Madam there is a HUGE difference between the USA and Dubya. One deserves unyeilding support, and the other is a Politician.

[marron]

It is fitting that we consider the subject of "enemy combatants" who are residents, or even citizens, of the US and are thereby protected by the US Constitution.

The potential problem of enemy-fellow-citizens must be faced, and considered. In wartime, must every civil protection normally provided to someone suspected of a crime be accorded an enemy? Must activities that indicated loyalty to our military enemies be ignored, in the absense of a concrete criminal or paramilitary action?


If it is clear that someone has sided with the enemy, are we prevented from moving against him pre-emptively?

For that matter, by what law or dispensation do we move against anyone, anywhere, who has not been found guilty in a court of law?

Why was it not necessary to file charges against the Government of Japan, on December 8, 1941? By what right did we attack and kill German soldiers, who had not attacked us? By what right did we kill German and Japanese civilians, by the hundreds of thousands, who were most assuredly not proven guilty of any crime against the US at all?

Simple.

War, by definition, exists when the state of affairs, when the threat to the country, is beyond the ability of civil or criminal law to contain it.

When the threat is larger than the criminal justice system, and beyond the jurisdiction of normal courts, and normal police methods, we declare that we are in a state of war.

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.

The only way to avoid this fate is to surrender most energetically, and promptly, in which case you will be held until the end of hostilities. And then, and only then, will someone outside the military take an interest in your fate.

This is how it works, and this is also why a "finding", or "declaration", that we are at war, is legally necessary.

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.

Which we are, and which Congress has already done. If they feel like reiterating it prior to any further military action, then fine, but it doesn't change the "fact" that we are at war, or that they have already recognized that fact.

[HaveGunWillTravel]

I hereby declare you all "enemy combatants."

[rdb3]

Blacks may have won, but free men lost.

Maybe free men wouldn't have lost if enslaved men were free as well. So I'm sure you'll understand that I'm less than sympathetic. Besides, Lincoln didn't really free anyone for what it's worth and the fight wasn't over slavery.

At any rate, it's 2002. That's Two Thousand and Two. The 21st Century. I like it here. I don't want to go back to the 19th Century.

So, can we stay here in the present, please?

[OldFriend]

I'm calling for MORE secret detentions. WE ARE AT WAR

[dead]

Will you stand by your essay if the government, who currently must produce no evidence of guilt (or even evidence for suspicion!), declares you or your brother "an enemy of the state"?

Will you stand by your essay if the government, at the time you are accused, is led by President Hillary Clinton and her Attorney General Andrew Cuomo?

[Destructor]

The above scene of ragheads behind the wire of a "camp" doesn't bother me one bit!

[TLBSHOW]

FOR LIBERALS

[marron]

Not legal, until Congress does it.

If Congress declares war, and the military decides that I am an enemy combatant, then I am in a heap of trouble.

If it is not true, then it is tragic. That is why we mustn't go to war lightly. And these kinds of things happen in war, which is precisely why war is tragedy, even when necessary, and doubly tragic when not. Innocent people have their lives wrecked, on a good day in wartime.

[twigs]

Turley and Hentoff are liberals, but they are two of the few to whom I listen--with respect. I may not agree with them, but unlike their liberal colleagues, these men actually think. And stick their necks out to the wrath of their liberal colleagues. Hentoff is pro-life and Turley argued against Clinton during the mess he caused while in office.

[Republic]

I hope, and pray, that AG John Ashcroft and team make life in America pure hell for those who would be likely to kill innocents under the name of Allah or any other so called God. Grownups make the moves that preserve freedom, children live in the 'it can't happen to me' world.

[CDHart]

"And, even That Trust will be "qualified", and with reservations."

As it should be. I wouldn't trust the lot of them (politicians and government) as far as I could throw them.

Carolyn

[dead]

Giving up a little freedom for a little security, because you're so grownup, eh?

One of our founding children had a few comments about that trade off.

[ArGee]

While I think the author is being a little extreme, I do believe that there should be some separation of powers before an individual is considered to be an enemy combatant. Would it be so terrible to have a court created for this purpose? It should not be a military court because that is under the Executive Branch. It should be a part of the Judicial Branch and it should review the evidence that the individual is an enemy combatant. If it finds the evidence compelling, the guy gets locked up. If it finds the evidence questionable, then the Justice Department can make its case in an open court.

This is a new situation, we should make reasonable new rules to deal with it.

Putting all the power to determine who is and who is not an EC in the hands o fone branch of government is not reasonable, IMHO, no matter whose administration it is.

Shalom.

[ladtx]

I suppose my skepticism comes when I hear a liberal start talking about the Bill of Rights my hand immediately goes to my wallet and I check to see if I've still got my watch. Somehow the terms liberal and Bill of Rights do not go together.

[Steve_Seattle]

This story ignores the fact that Hamdi IS an enemy combatant, captured in Afghanistan with his Taliban unit. The article is also factually wrong in claiming that Hamdi is under the jurisdiction of John Ashcroft; as an enemy combatant, he is under the jurisdiction of Donald Rumsfeld. And legal precedent for this type of detention goes back to World War II and is lawful under the Geneva Convention. There is an excellent article on this topic by Kate O'Bierne in the current National Review Online.

[mysterio]

I was going to reply, but your post says it all.

[Moby Grape]

No it isn't...I was speaking of the Village Voice...those who accuse Ashcroft and call for his resignation should look around to see who their bed fellows are....There is message in the fact that the left is leading the charge, and that some of the verbage in the anti-Ashcroft rants sound just like what one would hear from the Communist Party, USA.