On 16 Aug 2002 at 8:59, Archibald Scatflinger wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> Print This Story E-mail This Story Go
> To Original Camps for Citizens: Ashcroft's Hellish Vision Attorney
> general shows himself as a menace to liberty. By Jonathan Turley
> Jonathan Turley is a professor of constitutional law at George
> Washington University. Los Angeles Times Wednesday, 14 August, 2002
> Atty. Gen. 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.
> Ashcroft's plan, disclosed last week but little publicized, would
> allow him to order the indefinite incarceration of U.S. citizens and
> summarily strip them of their constitutional rights and access to the
> courts by declaring them enemy combatants. The proposed camp plan
> should trigger immediate congressional hearings and reconsideration of
> Ashcroft's fitness for this 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. The camp plan was forged at an
> optimistic time for Ashcroft's small inner circle, which has been
> carefully watching two test cases to see whether this vision could
> become a reality. The cases of Jose Padilla and Yaser Esam Hamdi will
> determine whether U.S. citizens can be held without charges and
> subject to the arbitrary and unchecked authority of the government.
> Hamdi has been held without charge even though the facts of his case
> are virtually identical to those in the case of John Walker Lindh.
> Both Hamdi and Lindh were captured in Afghanistan as foot soldiers in
> Taliban units. Yet Lindh was given a lawyer and a trial, while Hamdi
> rots in a floating Navy brig in Norfolk, Va. This week, the government
> refused to comply with a federal judge who ordered that he be given
> the underlying evidence justifying Hamdi's treatment. The Justice
> Department has insisted that the judge must simply accept its
> declaration and cannot interfere with the president's absolute
> authority in "a time of war." In Padilla's case, Ashcroft initially
> claimed that the arrest stopped a plan to detonate a radioactive bomb
> in New York or Washington, D.C. The administration later issued an
> embarrassing correction that there was no evidence Padilla was on such
> a mission. What is clear is that Padilla is an American citizen and
> was arrested in the United States--two facts that should trigger the
> full application of constitutional rights. Ashcroft hopes to use his
> self-made "enemy combatant" stamp for any citizen whom he deems to be
> part of a wider terrorist conspiracy. Perhaps because of his
> discredited claims of preventing radiological terrorism, aides 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. Few would have imagined any attorney general
> seeking to reestablish such camps for citizens. 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. We are only now getting a full vision of Ashcroft's
> America. Some of his predecessors dreamed of creating a great society
> or a nation unfettered by racism. Ashcroft seems to dream of a country
> secured from itself, neatly contained and controlled by his judgment
> of loyalty. For more than 200 years, security and liberty have been
> viewed as coexistent values. Ashcroft and his aides appear to view
> this relationship as lineal, where security must precede liberty.
> Since the nation will never be entirely safe from terrorism, liberty
> has become a mere rhetorical justification for increased security.
> Ashcroft is a catalyst for constitutional devolution, encouraging
> citizens to accept autocratic rule as their only way of avoiding
> massive terrorist attacks. His greatest problem has been preserving a
> level of panic and fear that would induce a free people to surrender
> the rights so dearly won by their ancestors. In "A Man for All
> Seasons," Sir Thomas More was confronted by a young lawyer, Will
> Roper, who sought his daughter's hand. Roper proclaimed that he would
> cut down every law in England to get after the devil. More's response
> seems almost tailored for Ashcroft: "And when the last law was down
> and the devil turned round on you, where would you hide, Roper, the
> laws all being flat? ... This country's planted thick with laws from
> coast to coast ... and if you cut them down--and you are just the man
> to do it--do you really think you could stand upright in the winds
> that would blow then?" Every generation has had Ropers and Ashcrofts
> who view our laws and traditions as mere obstructions rather than
> protections in times of peril. But before we allow Ashcroft to denude
> our own constitutional landscape, we must take a stand and have the
> courage to say, "Enough." Every generation has its test of principle
> in which people of good faith can no longer remain silent in the face
> of authoritarian ambition. If we cannot join together to fight the
> abomination of American camps, we have already lost what we are
> defending. If you want other stories on this topic, search the
> Archives at latimes.com/archives. For information about reprinting
> this article, go to www.lats.com/rights. (In accordance with Title 17
> U.S.C. Section 107, this material is distributed without profit to
> those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included
> information for research and educational purposes.)
>
Remember that the FBI refused to check out Moussaoui's computer
files because they did not want to be accused of targeting Muslims; had
they done so, many thousands of lives might have been saved.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Sun Sep 22 2002 - 05:06:19 MDT