Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: hawk220 on August 14, 2002, 12:22:16 PM
-
COMMENTARY
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.
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.
-
Hmm. I thought they said never again after the WWII Japanese internment camps (which were just as stupid back then IMO).
Hey Ashcroft, you're an amazinhunk.
Karaya2
-
your both now on the list
-
no...they wouldn't do tha....wait..there's someone at the door.
-
John, every American is on this "McCarthy clone's" list. I really don't care. He's still an amazinhunk.
Masher
PS - I could be found on a park bench in the middle of the Punjab, guess what? He'll still be an amazinhunk.
-
bar code... or tattoo... hmmm touch choice.
Can I get abar code in any color other than black/blue ?
-
Thats ok.. when Hittelery becomes president these laws will still be in effect.:eek:
-
the russians now tell us that McCarthy was right, they had spies everywhere, how do you think they got the nuke bomb?
-
What!!??
McCarthy was right about what? That Commies were gonna take over from Hollywood? Paaleeez!
-
Ashcroft's plan, disclosed last week but little publicized...
Anyone got a link that shows this "Ascroft's Plan", or at least where and how this information was diclosed? It's a very disturbing notion, but the article above cites no sources, nor does it quote the plan itself. Indeed, it doesn't even indicate if it's really a written plan, or just ideas floating around in the AG offices.
"Enemy combatant", according to the United States Law of Armed Conflict, refers to very specific circumstances. It would apply to Hamdi and John Walker Lindh (the guys nabbed in Afganistan), but would not apply to Jose Padilla (guy accused of plotting the "radiation dirty bomb", but nabbed in the US). It refers to armed soldiers (regular or irregular) in a combat zone. I would like to know if this article posted above is based on rumor and assumption, or on actual documentation or sworn testimony. Only then can it be evaluated.
In regards to the conditions and justification of the incarceration of Padilla and Hamdi, I haven't seen the details or facts. Anyone with info on that? What is Hamdi's citizenship status? I haven't heard anything about Padilla being denied legal council. Has he been denied this?
-
Originally posted by Sabre
Anyone got a link that shows this "Ascroft's Plan", or at least where and how this information was diclosed? It's a very disturbing notion, but the article above cites no sources, nor does it quote the plan itself. Indeed, it doesn't even indicate if it's really a written plan, or just ideas floating around in the AG offices.
"Enemy combatant", according to the United States Law of Armed Conflict, refers to very specific circumstances. It would apply to Hamdi and John Walker Lindh (the guys nabbed in Afganistan), but would not apply to Jose Padilla (guy accused of plotting the "radiation dirty bomb", but nabbed in the US). It refers to armed soldiers (regular or irregular) in a combat zone. I would like to know if this article posted above is based on rumor and assumption, or on actual documentation or sworn testimony. Only then can it be evaluated.
In regards to the conditions and justification of the incarceration of Padilla and Hamdi, I haven't seen the details or facts. Anyone with info on that? What is Hamdi's citizenship status? I haven't heard anything about Padilla being denied legal council. Has he been denied this?
Roger that. Where are the facts?
Plus, I'd be really sad to see Sandman interned for his subversive comments. What would happen to the Flying Zoo?
-
http://www.latimes.com
you have to register (free) to read articles.
look for: Camps for Citizens: Ashcroft's Hellish Vision (08/14/02)
-
Sabre finally figuring out these ain't your daddy's Republicans
-
So after your follow citizens spy on you and report you to your government they can concentrate you in camps? Without any constitutional rights or judical process? Indefinately??
:eek: :eek: :eek:
Holy crap!! For the love of god, can some of the conservatives on the board debunk this. :( Cripes...
-
I know padilla is a citizen and he's the one locked up in a cell. the others (non-citizens) are in court.
I believe the decision they're using to keep padilla is here http://www.c-span.org/laws_courts/expartequirin.asp I read it after JA's announcement explaining how it fit this scenario. Unfortunately Uncles reasoning sounds pretty thin then and now, especially when you consider are constitution is supposed to prevent our government from doing what they did.
Padilla should be afforded his rights, I don't want Uncle to start throwing it's weight around looking for 'threats' to the state. I believe padilla would get what he deserves when the evidence is brought forth. Just like it worked for McViegh, Mousoui and everyone else. To bad nobody has mentioned anything about evidence against padilla I for one would like to hear it.
-
Originally posted by 10Bears
Sabre finally figuring out these ain't your daddy's Republicans
Actually, I haven't "figured out" anything yet. I'm still researching the whole issue. As I imply above, the circumstances surrounding the detention of Padilla, a US citizen taken into custody on US soil, has me concerned. Based on the information I've gathered so far, I believe the AG's office and the Administration have improperly applied the term "enemy combatant" to Padilla. I also believe the courts will not uphold that status in the end. I also suspect, a suspicion born out by my digging around the news links, that the Government is trying to stall as long as they can moving Padilla's case out from under the "enemy combatant" definition. They're likely hoping to get more inforemation out of him in their ongoing hunt for terrorist plots/operatives. I think that's pushing the envelope too far, and am not afraid to say so, despite my continued overall support of the President, and of the Republican party. On the otherhand I will not condem the entire conservative ideology just because a conservative public servant has pushed his authority too far. If I and everyone else did that, there'd be no one left in either the Democratic or Republican parties, would there?
As for "Ashcrot's hellish vision," so far, except for the Turley article, I've found nothing substantiating supposed AG Office plans to set up these so-called camps. That part of the story looks and smells like simple fear-mongering by the Adminstration's political opposition.
Oh, and 10Bears my old friend, we could also talk about your daddy's Democrats, i.e. FDR and the internment camps. Some accused FDR of having a "hellish vision" for America, and of using WWII as an excuse to demolish the constitution. Instead, why don't we all just stay informed and insure such things don't happen in this country again. In any event, I have faith that the checks and balances within the three branches of the Federal Government will do what they're supposed to do.
-
Link to 1942 court finding regarding “enemy combatants” during World War II. http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=317&invol=1
Exerpts from court finging:
The following facts appear from the petitions or are stipulated. Except as noted they are undisputed.
“All the petitioners were born in Germany; all have lived in the United States. All returned to Germany between 1933 and 1941. All except petitioner Haupt are admittedly citizens of the German Reich, with which the United States is at war. Haupt came to this country with his parents when he was five years old; it is contended that he became a citizen of the United States by virtue of the naturalization of his parents during his minority and that he has not since lost his citizenship. The Government, however, takes the position that on attaining his majority he elected to maintain German allegiance and citizenship or in any case that he has by his conduct renounced or abandoned his United States citizenship. See Perkins v. Elg, 307 U.S. 325, 334 , 59 S.Ct. 884, 889; United States ex rel. Rojak v. Marshall, D.C., 34 F.2d 219; United States ex rel. Scimeca v. Husband, 2 Cir., 6 F.2d 957, 958; 8 U.S.C. 801, 8 U.S. C.A. 801, and compare 8 U.S.C. 808, 8 U.S.C.A. 808. For reasons presently to be stated we do not find it necessary to resolve these contentions. [317 U.S. 1, 21] After the declaration of war between the United States and the German Reich, petitioners received training at a sabotage school near Berlin, Germany, where they were instructed in the use of explosives and in methods of secret writing. Thereafter petitioners, with a German citizen, Dasch, proceeded from Germany to a seaport in Occupied France, where petitioners Burger, Heinck and Quirin, together with Dasch, boarded a German submarine which proceeded across the Atlantic to Amagansett Beach on Long Island, New York. The four were there landed from the submarine in the hours of darkness, on or about June 13, 1942, carrying with them a supply of explosives, fuses and incendiary and timing devices. While landing they wore German Marine Infantry uniforms or parts of uniforms. Immediately after landing they buried their uniforms and the other articles mentioned and proceeded in civilian dress to New York City.”
“The President, as President and Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy, by Order of July 2, 1942,2 appointed a Military Commission and directed it to try petitioners for offenses against the law of war and the Articles of War, and prescribed regulations for the procedure on the trial and for review of the record of the trial and of any judgment or sentence of the Commission. On the same day, by Proclamation,3 the President declared that 'all persons who are subjects, citizens or residents of any nation at war with the United States or who give obedience to or act under the direction of any such nation, [317 U.S. 1, 23] and who during time of war enter or attempt to enter the United States ... through coastal or boundary defenses, and are charged with committing or attempting or preparing to commit sabotage, espionage, hostile or warlike acts, or violations of the law of war, shall be subject to the law of war and to the jurisdiction of military tribunals'.”
Courts decision:
“(1) That the charges preferred against petitioners on which they are being tried by military commission appointed by the order of the President of July 2, 1942, allege an offense or offenses which the President is authorized to order tried before a military commission. (2) That the military commission was lawfully constituted. (3) That petitioners are held in lawful custody, for trial before the military commission, and have not shown cause for being discharged by writ of habeas corpus. The motions for leave to file petitions for writs of habeas corpus are denied. The orders of the District Court are affirmed. The mandates are directed to issue forthwith.”
Further news articles on the case of Jose Padilla..
http://www.cnn.com/2002/LAW/06/14/padilla.justice/index.html
and another…
http://www.cnn.com/2002/LAW/06/11/prisoner.status/index.html
As you can see from the above info, the Government believes it has precident on it's side...to a point. The Justice Dept. has also said publically that Padilla would be allowed access to an attourney, in order to discuss the applicability of the term "enemy combatant" to his case. The main danger I see in the whole issue is that there's no clear process in place in determining if the Government's declaration of "enemy combatant" is justified. It did not appear to answer this question in the court findings. Obviously the potential for abuse of such a broad power is high. Again, that's what the courts are for, and a free and unfettered media.
-
I sometimes wonder if leftys squirm as much, knowing that Jesse Jackson is a liberal, as I do, knowing that Ashcroft is a conservative.