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.
Sorry Laz, but I gotta call you on this.
I agree with most of your comments, as they are lucid and thoughtfull. But not this.............I'd like to have a long dicussion on this but I am a bit tired now so I will be as brief as possible.
First of all, I carry a copy of the Constitution with me always and distribute copies that I buy from the CATO institute at my own expense because I believe that EVERYONE should read it and refer to it daily. But yet, because of my political beliefs and my stand on law and order, drugs and wartime efforts of the justice dept., you and others would definately refer to me as a RINO. I am no such thing!
What gives you the right to determine the direction this forum takes or for that matter the direction of the republican party. Who gave you the right to define conservativism so narrowly that you exclude all but a vocal minority in the party.
We are a large and diverse group that comes to consensus on most issues. We don't always agree.
I am not a RINO! What I am is a conservative with a authoritarian leanings. I am a hawk. I believe in the two party system and I definately am not a damn RINO, CINO or whatever derogatory meaningless label you or and of the other Constitution pounders want to come up with.
You make a great mistake to attempt to narrowly define a conservative.IMHO
It is a broad term, as is liberal.
To: dead*************************
Ridiculous liberal rant/lies/read/propaganda.
# 160 by ladyinred
When liberals tell the truth, you should not deny the truth because you heard it from a liberal. The truth is the truth, ladyinred.
The Partiot Act will be the end of our free society if it is allowed to stand.
Republicans, led by Ashcroft and Bush, are the ones who imposed the Patriot Act on us.
The Patriot Act allows :
1) physical searches without a warrant
2) wiretaps of telephones without a warrant
3) surveillance of internet activity without a warrant
4) Grand Jury information to be shared among government and foreign agencies
5) information on citizens to be shared among government and foreign agencies
6) DNA markers to be taken from anyone accused of committing or considering a violent act
7) full access to our financial and banking records.
8) full access to our educational records
"Violence" has been re-defined as any act that uses, attempts to use, threatens to use, or has the potential of becoming violent.
"Terrorism" has been re-defined to mean any act of violence, any intention to commit violence, any activity that would threaten or coerce others to change their activities, any intention to threaten or coerce others to change their activities, any crime committed with the use of a computer, any racketeering activity, and any act that interferes with interstate or international commerce.
Since local and state commerce are already known to be defined as "interstate" by the federal government because of the drug "war," any crime that effects commerce is terrorism.
Any crime, no matter how simple, can now be defined as terrorism, so the special laws enacted against terrorists apply to any crime. Thus, a man who defrauds his company is a terrorist.
A protester outside of an abortion clinic is a terrorist, guilty of the crime of intimidating, or trying to intimidate, people into changing their behavior. A pimp with his stable of women is a racketeer, involved in illegal business activities, and so too is classified as a terrorist.
A drug dealer is also involved in illegal business, as is his customer, who at the least is guilty of aiding terrorism through buying the illegal product of the drug dealer. The television commercials aren't just advertising. Drug buyers are now legally defined as terrorist supporters under the Patriot act.
Any terrorist, or supporter of terrorism, is subject to secret arrest, without a trial, without a lawyer, and without even notifying his family. Any person arrested under the terrorism statutes can be held indefinitely, without charges ever being filed.
In addition, the Patriot Act provides for sharing all law enforcement data among Federal, State, and Local police, and for co-ordination of response to any act of terrorism.
The Patriot Act creates to a Federal police force, with Local and State branches. It is a police force with the power to investigate crime both inside and outside the country, and unlimited access to all of our public and private information. It is a police force that doesn't have to explain it's actions.
Here's some quotes from the Patriot act :
"...Coordination of Federal, State, and local terrorism research, preparedness, and response programs must be improved..."
"...Private business, government, and the national security apparatus increasingly depend on an interdependent network of critical physical and information infrastructures, including telecommunications, energy, financial services, water, and transportation sectors..."
"...The support provided under paragraph (1) shall include the following :
"...(B) Acquisition from State and local governments and the private sector of data necessary to create and maintain models of such systems and of critical infrastructures generally..."
They are Republicrats.
The 'Patriot Act' was developed prior to 9/11. The political class views the Constitution only as an obstruction, not the law of the land.
Too bad your insights violate those of the duopoly.
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.
Go back and read your Constitution. The 13th Amendment dealt specifically with the prohibition of chattel slavery within the US and environs. More particularly: "Section 1. Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction."
# 172 by mhking
You're wrong, mhking.
The word "except" has meaning; in this case, it means "other than."
Re-read the 13th Amendment, and tell me if you still think that we are safe from the threat of slavery.
You and I both know you would not have gotten away with this a month ago.
I suspect soon there will be another disaster, followed by extreme babblings about how scared we should be, followed, (very quickly), with a your papers please society.
And right here, that 20% will sing the song, and spread the fear. Reminding us how we are either on the bus or off the bus. Constantly using the tin foil mantra, and belittling anyone but team.
To: exodus; All
GW Bush 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.
President Bush cannot legally make War without the continuing support of Congress, without a Declaration of War.
The War Powers Resolution does not give the President military powers, it limits his ability to "...introduce United States Armed Forces into hostilities..." "...In the absence of a Declaration of War..."
The War Powers Act of 1973, otherwise known as the "War Powers Resolution," limits any Congressional authorization to 8 months.
In other words, without a Declaration of War, President Bush is required by the War Powers Act to stop any military action unless Congress gives him permission every 8 months.
President Bush is one month past that deadline.
Without permission to continue hostilities, [Section 5 (b)] --
"...the President shall terminate any use of United States Armed Forces..."
To: exodus; trebb
"...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
# 138 by christine
With Republicans and Democrats playing tag team with American citizens, there is no worry that an "enemy" will ever be in power.
Republicans and Democrats are on the same team.
To: exodus; technochick99; Lazamataz; dead; Cato; tpaine
Why bother - I'm reading the replies on this thread which demonstrate the extreme partisanship, lack of foresight, clear misunderstanding of history and utterly abject lack of common sense on the part of those who think a bunch of executive branch 'crats deciding who is an enemy combatant without judicial oversight and absolute suspension of civil rights is a good thing. 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.
# 183 by Abundy
It hasn't been that long ago that Freepers were worried about Clinton contriving some good-sounding reason to declare a State of Emergency and use that to somehow stay in power.
Well, it turns out we don't have to worry about anything like that.
The Republicans and Democrats are perfectly willing to take turns running our socialist government.
It IS too late!
It wasn't more than 60 years ago that we locked up Americans for being of Japanese descent.
If your looking for idiotic, check the mirror.
Damn right!
Just on the King's, errr, President's signature and order AN AMERICAN CITIZEN, EVEN NATIVE BORN, can be locked up indefinetly, without charges, without a hearing, without bail, without communication with family, lawyer, friends?? If so can this really be America?
IMO, this isn't American and this suggestion is purely UnConstitutional.
But who cares as long as it isn't you and the screams are kept low and the camps out of view.
Might be a good way to feal with all criminals as they TERRORIZE just as much as Ben Larden, especially the marijuana smokers.
CATO
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.