Well, Clinton probably should have accepted her resignation after Waco, but she was “merely” incompetent. Ashcroft needs to be dragged in front of the assembled Congress and publicly dismissed. Oops, shouldn’t have said that, I guess I’m aiding terrorists now.
Why is that?
I’m glad Ashcroft jailed those illegal aliens. I just wish he’d go after the other 15 million that are in my country.
Also, I salute him for taking a page out of Franklin D. Roosevelts book and authorizing military tribunals for noncitizen enemies of the U.S. You know, FDR was always a hero of mine.
I’m still waiting for a poster to explain how Ashcroft violated the constitution.
The estimable Mrs. Goose is, as a matter of procedure, correct that the courts will take many years to work out any legal issues that are thrown their way. Hell, they’re still arguing over the freakin’ Exxon Valdez, if you remember the legal headlines of a month ago. But more important, the courts may never even get a chance to reverse Ashcroft’s (and the Bush administration’s) actions, Izzy. Military tribunals don’t get reviewed by the courts. It’s a bitch to get a hearing when you’ve been secretly detained without counsel. The harm from breaching attorney-client confidentiality might never be repaired, since it prevents a suspect from being candid with his attorney in the first place. (You and I have actually discussed that particular topic in GD a while back, if you recall.) And hounding innocent Arab immigrants for interviews merely becuase of their national origin is extremely unlikely to ever be reviewed by the courts because there’s no criminal case involved and any available civil damages are trivially small.
You and I can reasonably disagree on those issues. But all that’s beside the point. The son of a bitch said I “give ammunition to America’s enemies and pause to America’s friends.” Apparently, I also “aid terrorists” by opposing his actions. And if that weren’t enough, I “encourage people of good will to remain silent in the face of evil,” all because I and others with opinions similar to mine dare to exercise our First Amendment right to criticize the political actions of our government.
Rhetoric like that would be ridiculous for the president of the local Kiwanis club. Coming from the United States Attorney General, it is reprehensible and inexcusable.
From what you’re telling us, Minty, it looks like our rights as we know them are being flushed down the crapper.
These steps are by no means a done deal, Guin. I happen to think the Constitution, our democracy, and our rights are in pretty good shape, by and large. Yes, I am concerned about some of the legal policies Bush and Ashcroft have announced in the last couple months. However, you don’t see me starting Pit threads about it–I take it to GD, where rational debate has its home. What you do see me starting a Pit thread about is John Ashcroft telling me that I’m the SDMB equivalent of Mullah Omar for daring to question his policies. And you’re right–that’s exactly the sort of tactic Senator McCarthy would have loved.
(in my best singing voice)
I’m still waaaaiiiting, still waaaaaiiting , for someone to say which rights they’ve lost!
What can I say… <sniff> minty, you do me proud. Thank you. Thank you all.
I’m all choked up now.
Yes, because a healthy dose of cynicism and concern is quite the equivalent of killing 4,000 innocent people. By God! I see the comparison!
Oh yes, my other favorite thing in the wake of September 11: people who callously, inconsiderately, and cruelly advocate using a national fucking tragedy to address their own issues.
Well, if you read a single fucking article about the subject, he wouldn’t have to explain it to you. Check this one out - it does a nice job of highlighting the issues at hand.
If that doesn’t blatantly smack of McCarthyism to you, then you don’t know your history very well.
And if you can’t see how this Act will infringe upon our Constitution rights, then I won’t waste any more time on you.
Listen, you smarmy-ass fuckwad, the point is that this Act gives the government the power to take away our Constitutional rights, if they do so under the bullshit blanket of “fighting terrorism.”
God, read an article or something. My dog knows more about this than you.
Let’s assume for a moment, Barking Spider, that the Supreme Court were to eventually rule that every one of Ashcroft and Bush’s proposals were perfectly constitutional. So fucking what? Am I supporting terrorism by stating my opinion to the contrary? Passing them ammunition? Preventing the Air Force from bombing the shit out of them?
No, speaking up does not do any of those things. To suggest otherwise is ignorant, small-minded, disgusting, and contemptible. Do you suggest otherwise?
Look, unless you have a cite showing an acutal case of an actual person’s Constitutional rights being violated, I suggest you shut up already. (Not you personally, just people making these arguments.)
Alternatively, provide ONE CITE where anything the Administration has done is unconstitutional. Big hint–it ain’t unconstitutional because you, Minty, Guin, or even the esteemed DDG says it is.
What has always pissed me off about this pig-fucker is that his appointment was if anything more blatantly ignoring the wishes of voters than Bush’s.
Voting public: We’d rather be represented by a dead man than by this ignorant back-woods fuck.
President Bush: Ok, we’ll just get him into an appointed office.
The reason he’s so opposed to dancing is that he knows how many people will dance on his grave when he’s gone.
Hello!
The fact is, the governments been taking away our freedoms for many,many years!
Pay social security taxes? How is that constitutional?
Gun laws? How are they constitutional?
Federal spending on education? How is that constitutional?
Federal taxing and spending on healthcare? How is that constitutional?
I’m glad so many of you are now so worried about the constitution.
It just is strange to me that so many posters who are in favor of illegal unconstitional federal programs such as social security, welfare,medicare/medicaid, gun laws, and the education spending are now pitching a bitch because the attorney general is doing what liberal icon FDR did.
If Ashcroft had only challenged Carnahans election to the Senate, Carnahans election would have been overturned.
There is NO doubt about this.
Blow me, bucko. My beef is not about the constitutionality of Ashcroft’s policies. You wanna debate that? Fine, I’ll be happy to do so over in GD. You wanna defend Ashcroft calling everyone who has the temerity to question his policies a terrorist sympathizer? Then step up to the plate and start swinging.
I’m still on the fence about Ashcroft’s actions, but I did see a clip of him today or yesterday joking with the congressional committee he was appearing before. He really didn’t look unhinged as Molly Ivins suggested.
I’m not too worried about a slippery slope yet [sub](Dang, that’s becoming a popular expression!)[/sub]. After all, we have the ACLU on our side, don’t we?
BTW, Nacho4Sara for a good read on McCarthyism.
Also BTW I understand other presidents have used the military tribunal thing: FDR and Lincoln, but I don’t have cites.
The thing that mostly bothers me is the listening in on defendant/lawyer conversations. Any lawyers in the house: Doesn’t this destroy the attorney/client relationship?
(Once again in my best singing voice)
Constitional Riiiiiiighhhts!, Oh please will a poster tell me whose constitional Riiiiiiights have been hurt!
Minty Green has been a…cursing, those who disagree, that anyones constitutional riiiiiiights have been violated!
The thing is, there’s nothing to debate, in GD, here, or elsewhere. John Ashcroft, President Bush, the so-called Patriot Act, whatever. Only the Courts, with the Supreme Court being the final arbiter, can make the determination that a law, executive order, etc. is unconstitutional. Remember the whole checks and balances thingie?
BTW, isn’t Mr. Ashcroft entitled to his opinion?
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by milroyj *
**
So calling people who oppose what you do terrorist sympathisers, as Mr. Ashcroft has is NOT an ad hominem attack???