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 Rumsfeldanyone 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 citizensYaser Esam Hamdi and Jose Padillaare 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] Padillamostly empty since it was designated in January to hold foreigners captured in the U.S. and facing military tribunalsnow 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 detainingnot in these special camps, but in regular lockupsany 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 editorialwritten before those plans were revealedsaid: "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.
Oh and I forgot how many terrorists were allowed to enter America during that time because the DOJ and Reno looked the other way.
I may not agree with everything Ashcroft has sanctioned, but at least he is going for the real suspects with real actions.
It's actually the other way around. Maybe enslaved men wouldn't have been freed if free men hadn't been as free as they were. Loss of liberty for anyone is bad for everyone. We have the same constitution in the present that we had in the nineteenth century. It's interpretation is in part based on precedent. A precedent was set that resulted in the emancipation of slaves. A dangerous precedent was set that resulted in a loss of liberty for everyone.
You'd need an adjective before "liberal" in order for it to be correct. That adjective is "classical."
But since now "liberal" is a euphemism for "Leftist," I share your sentiment.
We survived the Japanese interment camps, we survived many activities that most of us would rather never have happen. Another VERY great founding father once said....(we leave to you) a republic, if you can keep it.
For some of us keeping 'it' means taking steps towards prevention of terrorism, for others, like yourself, it means bending over backwards to be politically correct, avoiding making the boo boo of withholding specific freedoms to individuals who fall into the category potential threats. Tough.
None of us will have any freedom at all if it comes to living in fear all the time. That is MORE than worth an ounce of prevention, imho.
Ya think?
A precedent was set that resulted in the emancipation of slaves. A dangerous precedent was set that resulted in a loss of liberty for everyone.
Ummm... I think I'll give you a chance to clear this statement of yours up a bit before I comment. Surely you're not saying what I think you're saying.
I am talking about US citizens here, being locked up without lawyers, without any airing of the evidence, and without the government even formally charging them. Do you not get that?
Let's try that again - blacks did not fall under the thrall of the government until years later. You can thank Roosevelt and later Johnson for that. The New Deal and The New Society are what gave blacks the impression that rights came from the government. Lincoln had nothing to do with that.
You may have a problem with Lincoln - he was no saint - but he's not guilty of everything you point toward.
Meaning, I guess, that those who think it's just fine to have these actions taken, disregarding the fact that in the future some really bad people (maybe Hillary!) may be in charge and able to take similar actions against good people (maybe me or you)are the ones in the 'it can't happen to me' world.
Meaning further, I guess, that those of us who think this is a dangerous path are the grownups.
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.
Then which is it - are we already in a state of war as granted by the war powers act, or are we not? You speak from both sides of your mouth.
I still don't get your point.
For some of us keeping 'it' means taking steps towards prevention of terrorism, for others, like yourself, it means bending over backwards to be politically correct, avoiding making the boo boo of withholding specific freedoms to individuals who fall into the category potential threats. Tough.
Your interpretation of that quote runs in direct opposition to its actual meaning.
with friends like these who needs terrorists!
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.