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

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.

At least under Ashcroft the alleged criminals are detained and will eventually have due process. Under Reno's Raiders, division of the Branch Clintonians, armed assults by jack booted black uniforms killed over a hundred people in Waco, then covered up and derailed the investigation because key witnesses against the government met early demises from heart attacks, strokes, and plane crashes. And storm troopers break down doors and overwhelm citizens to remove children from immigrating. Now how is that for an efficient law enforcement policy?

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.

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.

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.

Somehow the terms liberal and Bill of Rights do not go together.

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.

It is not a matter of me standing by my essay.

It is simply a matter of fact. War, by definition, means that the legal structure is unable to contain the threat. Instead of diplomats, or sheriffs, they are sending Marines who are going to kill me. They will not be serving a warrant prior to doing so.

This is why a declaration of war is legally necessary. The military will not worrying about rules of evidence, or tainting witnesses, or reading me my rights. They are planning to kill me.

If Hillary were president, the likelihood that the US will turn its guns on innocents is increased 10 fold. Think about it; they killed innocent US citizens without any declaration of war, at all.

You cannot do that; but of course, they did it, and no one has yet called them on it.

There is an enormous difference between a government that kills its enemies without a warrant during a declared war, and one that kills its enemies without a warrant, without any such declaration.

And yes, I recognize the likelihood that people in this website would be considered enemies of any Clinton presidency. And the Clintons have well proven their willingness to kill their enemies. Remember the "list"?

Who is giving up freedom? People who would subvert our government? People who would kill for some so called God? You? Me? Are you saying if we don't defend and protect those under heavy suspicion at this apex in America's great experiment in protecting a democratic republic, we are going to be denying freedom and rights to all? Yes the lowliest of the low has rights, but if that person or persons is suspected of attempting to kill others for some nutcase cause-FORGET ABOUT IT.

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.

Loss of liberty for anyone is bad for everyone.

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.

Terrorists cannot bring about the repeal of our basic civil rights. Only our government, and people like you who support them in those activities, can.

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?

While the declaration of independance says that men derive their rights from their creator, under Lincoln's amended constitution, blacks now derive their rights from the government. They have simply changed masters. This is the present.

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.

Grownups make the moves that preserve freedom, children live in the 'it can't happen to me' world.

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.

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.

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.

Another VERY great founding father once said....(we leave to you) a republic, if you can keep it.

Your interpretation of that quote runs in direct opposition to its actual meaning.

When hillery gets elected you will all be singing a different tune. We now have a climate where it is possible to be simply discarded from society if those in power don't like what you say, what you think, or that smirk on your face. It will eventually have nothing to do about terriorism as anyone complaining about their taxes will be erased and if you ask where they went, you will be erased too.

with friends like these who needs terrorists!

Some of us like to mention the Japanese internment camps in these discussions.

There are two separate issues involved; one has to do with the reality of war, and the other has to do with simple corruption.

Many of the Japanese Americans lost their property during their internment. These properties were never returned to them after the war. This smells like corruption, and there will never be any justification for it.

But the simple issue of internment was justifiable. There was a fear, which seemed legitimate at the time, that the Japanese would form a fifth column within the country, mainly along the Pacific Coast.

That this fear was unfounded, even preposterous, was proven by the fact that young Japanese Americans volunteered for combat, and were among our most decorated soldiers, and suffered the highest rate of casualties of any group of Americans.

It is their war record that shamed us for doubting their loyalty. Their loyalty has been proven, by fire, such that no one could ever again doubt it.

But Radical Muslim Americans have not yet lined up at the recruiters, or thrown themselves into battle on our behalf, to demostrate their loyalty to flag or country. And reasonable Americans could be forgiven for wondering if they were a potential fifth column. And if there are any further mass attacks on US soil, a general roundup will be almost a certainty. Mass deportations likewise.

Some of it will be misplaced, and will likely cause trauma in the lives of innocent Muslims, who never deserved to be doubted. But in a declared war, such things happen. And it is legal.

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.