Guest guest Posted August 31, 2004 Report Share Posted August 31, 2004 > Fwd: Ashcroft Wants > Camps for Citizens > Labeled Enemy Combatants - Los Angeles Times! > > This is an article from the LA Times!!!! > > > http://www.commondreams.org/views02/0814-05.htm > > > Camps for Citizens: Ashcroft's Hellish > Vision > Attorney general shows himself as a menace > to liberty. > > by Jonathan Turley > > 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. > > Jonathan Turley is a professor of > constitutional law at George > Washington University. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.