posted
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
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.
-------------------- "The best defense is not a good offense. The best defense is a terrifyingly accurate and devastatingly powerful offense, with multiply-overlapping kill zones and time-on-target artillery strikes." -- Laurence, Archangel of the Sword
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
Cartman
just made by the Presbyterian Church
Member # 256
posted
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 ]
-------------------- ".mirrorS arE morE fuN thaN televisioN" - TEH PNIK FLAMIGNO
Registered: Nov 1999
| IP: Logged
"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
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.
-------------------- "The best defense is not a good offense. The best defense is a terrifyingly accurate and devastatingly powerful offense, with multiply-overlapping kill zones and time-on-target artillery strikes." -- Laurence, Archangel of the Sword
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
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
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.
-------------------- Great is the guilt of an unnecessary war. ~ohn Adams
Once again the Bush Administration is worse than I had imagined, even though I thought I had already taken account of the fact that the Bush administration is invariably worse than I can imagine. ~Brad DeLong
You're just babbling incoherently. ~C. Montgomery Burns
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
MIB
Ex-Member
posted
I have one only word for this. RECALL!!!!!!
IP: Logged
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.
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
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
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.
-------------------- "This is why you people think I'm so unknowable. You don't listen!" - God, "God, the Devil and Bob"
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
Cartman
just made by the Presbyterian Church
Member # 256
posted
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 ]
Printer-friendly view of this topic
