Criticize the government, they call you un-American.
quote:WASHINGTON (CNN) -- Attorney General John Ashcroft lashed out Thursday at critics of the administration's response to terrorism, saying questions about whether its actions undermine the Constitution only serve to help terrorists.
"To those who pit Americans against immigrants, citizens against non-citizens, to those who scare peace-loving people with phantoms of lost liberty, my message is this: Your tactics only aid terrorists for they erode our national unity and diminish our resolve," Ashcroft told the Senate Judiciary Committee. "They give ammunition to America's enemies and pause to America's friends. They encourage people of good will to remain silent in the face of evil.
"Our efforts have been crafted carefully to avoid infringing on constitutional rights, while saving American lives."
Ashcroft flatly rejected criticism of the administration's policies, including President Bush's decision to allow the use of military tribunals to try non-U.S. citizens suspected of terrorism, the detention of hundreds of immigrants in connection with the terrorism probe, the "voluntary" questioning of thousands of men from mostly Middle Eastern countries, and eavesdropping between attorneys and their clients in terrorism cases.
Each of those initiatives, he said, balance constitutional rights against the threat of terrorism.
"Charges of kangaroo courts and shredding the Constitution give new meaning to the term 'fog of war,'" Ashcroft said.
But Sen. Patrick Leahy, D-Vermont, the chairman of the committee, opened the hearing with some implied criticism of the administration, insisting "tremendous government power" had to be balanced against civil liberties.
"The need for congressional oversight is not -- as some mistakenly describe it -- to protect terrorists," Leahy said. "It is to protect Americans and protect our American freedoms that you and everyone in this room cherish so much. And every single American has a stake in protecting our freedoms."
Senators, mostly Democrats but some Republicans, pressed Ashcroft to outline what kind of guidelines would apply to the military tribunals. Sen. Edward Kennedy, D-Massachusetts, conceded the tribunals could be effective, but said they had "enormous potential for abuse" unless they were conducted with a clear set of rules and limits.
The specific guidelines for the tribunals, Ashcroft said, would be drafted by Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, but he said Bush's order had been for "full and fair proceedings." Those tribunals, however, could be held in secret when the president determined it was in the interest of "national security" to do so, Ashcroft said.
The attorney general said his day begins with a rundown of terrorist threats from the around the world, describing it as "a chilling daily chronicle of the hatred of Americans by fanatics."
To buttress that point, Ashcroft said the Justice Department will post on its Web site "several lessons" from a terrorist manual "so that Americans can know about the enemy."
Ashcroft said the manual came from the al Qaeda network and was first made public during the trial earlier this year of men who were later convicted of bombing two U.S. embassies in Africa.
The attorney general said the manual shows that terrorists are taught to manipulate the U.S. judicial system and news media to their advantage.
The administration had its defenders at the hearing. Sen. Orrin Hatch, R-Utah, the top Republican on the panel, suggested the criticism of the White House's policies was nothing more than a reflection of Senate egos.
"I would implore my colleagues, let's keep our focus where it matters: on protecting our citizens," Hatch said.
Posted by Mojo Jojo (Member # 256) on :
What a load of self-serving rethorical bullshit.
quote:...questions about whether its actions undermine the Constitution only serve to help terrorists.
I won't even go there.
Posted by First of Two (Member # 16) on :
Since terrorists aren't US citizens, AND are engaged in warfare against the United States, and thusly aren't and shouldn't be protected under the Constitution, the arguments voiced by the opposition are... well, to use Bill Maher's phrase, "The DUMB Opinion."
You may, however, whine if the US justice system violates, oh, maybe the Geneva Convention. Don't hold your breath.
Posted by Mojo Jojo (Member # 256) on :
Well, DUH. Then again, we want to protect the *citizens*, don't we? Is this accomplished by removing personal liberties? Dammit Orwell, only 17 years...
quote:It is to protect Americans and protect our American freedoms that you and everyone in this room cherish so much.
Which is exactly the opposite of "the administration's response".
[ December 06, 2001: Message edited by: Mojo Jojo ]
Posted by TSN (Member # 31) on :
"To those who pit Americans against immigrants...my message is this: Your tactics only aid terrorists..."
Erm... Who's doing that? Wouldn't it be the government themselves, as evidenced by...
"Ashcroft flatly rejected criticism of the administration's policies, including...the detention of hundreds of immigrants in connection with the terrorism probe..."
?
Posted by First of Two (Member # 16) on :
Since we're very specifically only removing the civil liberties of people we've already determined are NOT protected under our Constitution... what's the problem?
Are you suddenly afraid that the government is going to use this as an excuse to grab power and take away the rights of legitimate, law-abiding citizens?
Aren't you generally the same folks who tell me and others like me that we're being paranoid and following the 'slippery slope' argument, whenever we make the same complaints about restricting law-abiding citizens' rights to self-defense?
Oh, wait. It's OKAY, when a Democratic administration does it, it's only BAD when a Republican one does it. Or when you think one might. Then its time for riots in the streets. I forgot.
Posted by Raw Cadet (Member # 725) on :
I thought I once read somewhere that all men are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights. Maybe I am just imagining that.
[ December 06, 2001: Message edited by: Raw Cadet ]
Posted by Malnurtured Snay (Member # 411) on :
Yes, but Rob, you *are* paranoid.
Ashcroft just said criticizing the government was un-American. I don't recall ever saying your criticisms of the government were un-American, just paranoid. Now that the government is essentially willing to treat anyone like a terrorist because of their name or place of birth, aren't you worried about how that might extend?
See, the difference Rob, is that when you wax about the evils of the government, you're being paranoid. But here we can see the beginning of a dangerous trend. Can't you?
Posted by Jay the Obscure (Member # 19) on :
This is what happens when our Second Grader-in-Chief doesn't declare war on anything except a vague idea and defines our goal as getting rid of "evil doers."
Basicly what Ashcroft is saying is that any criticism of this vague evil doer policy equates to giving aid and cofort to the enemy. American democracy isn't about marching in lock step accusing those of disagreemet with treason. As much as right-wing pundits might want it to be, it isn't.
It's rather sad to see an administration so insecure that it dredges out treason rhetoric when people in the country want to know why people are being held without bail, without council, without being formally charged, ithout being brought to trial and creating rules to listen in on attorney client conversations.
I guess that some people out there think that that is a rather bad habit for our justice department to get into.
quote: Since we're very specifically only removing the civil liberties of people we've already determined are NOT protected under our Constitution... what's the problem?
Here's the problem:
quote:In decisions spanning more than a century, the U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that the Constitution's guarantees apply to every person within U.S. borders, including "aliens whose presence in this country is unlawful." On the other hand, the Court has said that when the federal government uses its broad powers to supervise immigration into this country, it can exercise those powers in ways that discriminate on the basis of "alienage." In other words, the government has the power to decide who to let into the country and under what circumstances. But once here, even undocumented immigrants have the right to freedom of speech and religion, the right to be treated fairly, the right to privacy, and the other fundamental rights U.S. citizens enjoy.
Since immigrants don't have the right to enter the U.S., those who are not here legally are subject to deportation. The Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) has the authority to question "any person believed to be an alien as to his right to be in the United States." But in a 1903 case called Yamataya v. Fisher, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that the INS could not deport someone without a hearing that meets Constitutional due process standards. Since then, procedural rights for undocumented immigrants have evolved so that today, in spite of Congress' attempts to curtail these rights, most people facing deportation are entitled to:
a hearing before an immigration judge and review, in most cases, by a federal court;
representation by a lawyer (but not at government expense);
reasonable notice of charges, and of a hearing's time and place;
a reasonable opportunity to examine the evidence and the government's witnesses;
competent interpretation for non-English speaking immigrants, and
clear and convincing proof that the government's grounds for deportation are valid.
~ACLU
quote:42 USC 21 � 1981 Equal rights under the law (a) Statement of equal rights All persons within the jurisdiction of the United States shall have the same right in every State and Territory to make and enforce contracts, to sue, be parties, give evidence, and to the full and equal benefit of all laws and proceedings for the security of persons and property as is enjoyed by white citizens, and shall be subject to like punishment, pains, penalties, taxes, licenses, and exactions of every kind, and to no other.
(b) "Make and enforce contracts" defined For purposes of this section, the term "make and enforce contracts" includes the making, performance, modification, and termination of contracts, and the enjoyment of all benefits, privileges, terms, and conditions of the contractual relationship.
(c) Protection against impairment The rights protected by this section are protected against impairment by nongovernmental discrimination and impairment under color of State law.
All persons are protected by the old due process clause, these include all human beings regardless of race, color, or citizenship.
quote:Alien inhabitants of a state, as well as all other persons within its jurisdiction, may invoke the protection of these clauses [the equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment]
~ TERRACE v. THOMPSON, 263 U.S. 197 (1923)
quote:The Bill of Rights is a futile authority for the alien seeking admission for the first time to these shores. But once an alien lawfully enters and resides in this country he becomes invested with the rights guaranteed by the Constitution to all people within our [398 U.S. 306, 310] borders. Such rights include those protected by the First and the Fifth Amendments and by the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. None of these provisions acknowledges any distinction between citizens and resident aliens. They extend their inalienable privileges to all 'persons' and guard against any encroachment on those rights by federal or state authority." Bridges v. Wixon, 326 U.S. 135, 161
~HELLENIC LINES v. RHODITIS, 398 U.S. 306 (1970)
And where are all the conservative voices crying about Bush using the Executive Order to create these things? That bad rotten Clinton was a usurper of power, but with Dubya, it's okily dokily.
Posted by MIB (Member # 426) on :
I have one only word for this. RECALL!!!!!!
Posted by First of Two (Member # 16) on :
quote:But once an alien lawfully enters and resides in this country he becomes invested with the rights guaranteed by the Constitution
You should have left this one out, as it's pretty conclusively proven that terrorists DON'T reside lawfully, having gained entrance to the country with falsified documents.
Heck, even those three Israeli kids who were complaining about getting picked up... THEY violated the law, too, which was how they were brought to the govt.'s attention.
Hm... since this is wartime, and these terrorists are soldiers in an enemy army/organization... we should look up legal Constitutional precedents dealing with THAT, and not law-abiding citizens. Then you might have a shred of a case.
Posted by Grokca (Member # 722) on :
Too bad Senator McCarthy died looks like the government could use a man like him right now.
Posted by Malnurtured Snay (Member # 411) on :
Rob,
I don't think you read Jay's post.
quote:In decisions spanning more than a century, the U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that the Constitution's guarantees apply to every person within U.S. borders, including "aliens whose presence in this country is unlawful." On the other hand, the Court has said that when the federal government uses its broad powers to supervise immigration into this country, it can exercise those powers in ways that discriminate on the basis of "alienage." In other words, the government has the power to decide who to let into the country and under what circumstances. But once here, even undocumented immigrants have the right to freedom of speech and religion, the right to be treated fairly, the right to privacy, and the other fundamental rights U.S. citizens enjoy.
quote:And where are all the conservative voices crying about Bush using the Executive Order to create these things? That bad rotten Clinton was a usurper of power, but with Dubya, it's okily dokily.
[ December 07, 2001: Message edited by: Malnurtured Snay ]
Posted by Omega (Member # 91) on :
the U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that the Constitution's guarantees apply to every person within U.S. borders, including "aliens whose presence in this country is unlawful."
And the Supreme Court would be (GASP!) WRONG!
From Ammendment XIV
"No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."
So all people are guarenteed equal protection of the law; and all people are guarenteed the right to their life, liberty, and property, except under due process. But ONLY CITIZENS are absolutely guarenteed the privileges and immunities enumerated in the Constitution.
And before Jeff goes on his usual bent about how the Supreme Court is a board of dictators, and screw the Constitution...
Article VI, Paragraph II
"This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authbority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws ofany State to the Contrart notwith-standing."
Constitution trumps Supreme Court.
Posted by Mojo Jojo (Member # 256) on :
And (GASP!) "aliens whose presence in this country is unlawful" are included in the present definition of "citizen".
NEXT!
[ December 07, 2001: Message edited by: Mojo Jojo ]
Posted by Malnurtured Snay (Member # 411) on :
quote:Constitution trumps Supreme Court.
Its so funny when Omega doesn't read the Constitution, which gives the Supreme Court the power it has. Suck on it, kiddo. Or try reading it sometime. Either way.
Posted by Jay the Obscure (Member # 19) on :
quote:Article. III.
Section 1. The judicial Power of the United States, shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish. The Judges, both of the supreme and inferior Courts, shall hold their Offices during good Behaviour, and shall, at stated Times, receive for their Services, a Compensation, which shall not be diminished during their Continuance in Office.
Section 2. The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made....
It's up to the Supreme Court to make that decision not you. And it's the Constitutional duty of the Court to do such.
The Court has held since the 1880's and reaffirmed that non-citizens in the United States are entitled to due process. You can kick them out and do just about anything under the law to them, but you have to give them due process.
Sorry that bugs you so much. It really shouldn't. All Ashcroft has to do is try and deport or jail whoever he thinks is an alien evil-doer and it's Constitutional. Hiding them in prision till he decides to let them go is not.
However, and I'm sure you're aware of such things cause I know how you like to keep up, he is claiming a warpower executive privledge. This might not be decided until a case comes before the Court from the current batch of detainees.
It might be interesting if you went back and read the habeas corpus arguments of the Civil War period. Or perhaps some of the habeas corpus decisions of hte Japanese-Americans imprisoned during WWII. I'll give you one of those cases to read, EX PARTE MITSUYE ENDO, 323 U.S. 283 (1944)
[ December 07, 2001: Message edited by: Jay the Obscure ]
Posted by Jay the Obscure (Member # 19) on :
And Fo2, I really try not to leave anything out. Even when it comes to things that someone else might grab and argue about.
In reading the decisions of the Court, it is clear that it believes that even people who have entered the country illegally are entitled to due process. Still, it is my understanding that many, if not all, of the people we have detained at the present time entered the country legally...even if they have overstayed visas or have commited some other offence...they were therefore lawful residents and meet the definition of your quote.
quote:Hm... since this is wartime, and these terrorists are soldiers in an enemy army/organization...
Please tell me how you figured out that the people currently locked up are all terrorists? Or that they are soldiers in the army of evil-doers?
[ December 07, 2001: Message edited by: Jay the Obscure ]
Posted by Raw Cadet (Member # 725) on :
I keep seeing references to being at war. Did I miss something? Whom did Congress officially declare war on?
Posted by Mojo Jojo (Member # 256) on :
On *terrorism* and *terrorists*. Nothing concrete.
Posted by Raw Cadet (Member # 725) on :
In a government governed by a constitution, must not powers be derived officially and technically, not "because it makes sense" or "that is the way it has been done before," a more common-law method? In other words, if the President is claiming greater powers because "we are at war," and the Attorney General is acting as if "we are at war," then should we not be at war, which can only be declared by Congress? Is not the usurpation (a word I use for lack of a better; forgive the negative connotations) of powers not granted in peacetime by the President and the Attorney General unconstitutional if we are not in a state of Congressionally declared war?
Posted by Malnurtured Snay (Member # 411) on :
I believe the president can commit our military forces to combat for up to 90 days before Congress must give its approval to continue.
For the record, the U.S. has not been at "war" (officially) since WWII.
Korea, Vietnam, the Persian Gulf, and our actions in Kosovo and other countries were "undeclared wars."
Doesn't make them any less deadly, tho.
But, yes, for this to continue, Bush & Co. are going to have to start defining specific goals. "Wiping out terrorists" isn't specific enough.
Posted by USS Vanguard (Member # 130) on :
Civil War too, Congress never declared war on the CSA because that would be an admission that the CSA is a nation and hence, might lead to European assistance of the southern states.
Posted by Raw Cadet (Member # 725) on :
I agree, a war is a war, but a constitutional government cannot act on "if it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck . . . ;" a constitution is written for the very purpose of spelling out what powers a government has and when. Thus, until war is declared by Congress (unless it already has), I would say the government is on shaky ground when it increases it powers in response to September 11, no matter what the precedent is. Indeed, acting on precedent is more of a common-law way of doing things, not a constitutional way of doing things. I only mention this because those that have no problem with the President and Attorney General assuming greater/"wartime" powers are usually the same people who claim the constitution is not to be interpreted or violated in any way.
Posted by targetemployee (Member # 217) on :
I don't trust this administration nor its policies. They are arrogant, self-conceited anal retentives led by a major arrogant, self-conceited anal retentive. (I am not referring to Bush. I am referring to that man who hides in a secure location, behind the president, and lives at the Naval Observatory. Last name starts with a C.)
Posted by First of Two (Member # 16) on :
I could say the same thing about ANOTHER self-absorbed, self-promoting, arrogant, pandering person whose last name begins with a C... but I won't, because I promised I wouldn't sink to that level.
But I can still say Bush hasn't boinked an intern.
Posted by Cartman (Member # 256) on :
Like boinking an intern is the greatest crime committable on Earth ( *cough* Watergate *cough* ). But nooooo, because C. happened to be a Democrat, the whole affair was turned into a gigantic national joke by - you guessed it - the Reppies. Lowest possible way to gain popularity, but hey... that's right-wingers for ya.
And I can still say C. was not an oil-industry controlled marionette puppet, unlike a CERTAIN other president whose name I shall not mention.
[ December 08, 2001: Message edited by: Cartman ]
Posted by TSN (Member # 31) on :
See, this is why I hate party politics. If people would give it up, they'd realize that it isn't a matter of Bush == crappy != Clinton, or Bush != crappy == Clinton. It's a matter of Bush == crappy == Clinton.
[ December 08, 2001: Message edited by: TSN ]
Posted by First of Two (Member # 16) on :
I'm still an Independent.
I just happen to be quite certain that history will show Bush II > Clinton. And Clinton = Harding.
However, Farquhar = Jefferson + Coolidge. Posted by Jay the Obscure (Member # 19) on :
Less than a year in the administration, that's one heck of an assumption.
Thank goodness we all have opinions.
[ December 08, 2001: Message edited by: Jay the Obscure ]
Posted by TSN (Member # 31) on :
Rob: Erm... What is it that relates you to Coolidge? Certainly not his tendency toward silence. Perhaps simply the fact that the vast majority of the population have no idea who he was?
Posted by First of Two (Member # 16) on :
Actually, IRL, I'm much quieter than I am here... unless a topic I have interest in is hit upon.
Coolidge was respected as possessing common sense and dry wit. He rarely wasted words. He was extremely popular during his presidency, and almost certainly would have been elected for a second term had he chosen to run again.
His policied favored business and economic growth He made no effort to shield the guilty parties from his predecessor's administration, and forced the resignation of corrupt officials.
(It should also be noted that during his term, Congress CUT income taxes, but the revenue from taxes INCREASED.)
He did make mistakes, though. should have bought the nations surplus agricultural products and sold them abroad. Should have tried to stop the rampant speculation that halped to cause the Depression.
