# Ashcroft, are you listening? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [May 1, 2002, 10:08am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ashcroft-are-you-listening/106658 "2002-05-01T10:08:31Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 3
**Author:** ![december](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/838e76/32.png) [@december](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/december)\ **Post date:** [May 2, 2002, 2:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ashcroft-are-you-listening/106658/41 "2002-05-02T14:02:03Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Pjen \* > \*\*_‘No wonder far right-wing parties are making a comeback in Europe.’_ > > I repeat: **cite?**. > \*\* [http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A18524-2002May1.html](http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A18524-2002May1.html) ---
**Author:** ![wring](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/838e76/32.png) [@wring](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/wring)\ **Post date:** [May 2, 2002, 2:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ashcroft-are-you-listening/106658/42 "2002-05-02T14:17:51Z")
First of all, let me say I’m pleased to note that it’s a news source and not an op ed piece. Unfortunately, it doesn’t support your contention that r/w parties are making a comeback in Europe. it does suggest that the major parties are concerned that in two British cities, an extremist party **might** pick up a local election seat . > [@](#): > > The party’s ambitions this week remain modest. "You know, if we could just win one or two seats on councils somewhere, that would be huge and it would be considered huge since > [@](#): > > In Britain’s general election last June, the BNP took less than half of 1 percent of the vote. None of its candidates came close to winning. The BNP has been entering candidates in local and national elections for nine years, and has never won anything and that the media is taking notice > [@](#): > > As the leader of Bexley’s small British National wing, Smith and his campaign became the subject of a flood of news accounts I don’t think this (“might” win two small local elections) quite rises to substantiate a claim of “making a comeback in Europe” ---
**Author:** ![Pjen](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/3d9bf3/32.png) [@Pjen](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Pjen)\ **Post date:** [May 2, 2002, 5:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ashcroft-are-you-listening/106658/43 "2002-05-02T17:49:45Z")
What Wring said and more :D. Its making news because it is so far from the norm of British politics where the system is skewed against minor parties. This means that every ten or fifteen years a left wing or right wing extreme group comes close to the threshold of gaining a seat and it makes big news. In recent polls, the ‘other’ category has been 2-3%. The facist vote would be in this if there was strong identification with a cause. When the facists get above that level, they are picking up populist anti-immigrant votes. I would also point out that I find it galling to be lectured about the far right and race by people from a nation which excluded almost all blacks over a large part of the country from voting by a variety of means within my living memory (i.e. up until the sixties). This has never been the case in Western Europe except during the Hitler era. Apart from then, all citizens of whatever race have been enfranchised. The USA certainly cannot make a similar claim. Additionally, most European countries have illiberal (by US standards) of limits on free-speech regarding racial matters. Many of the statements made by racists in the US which are fully protected would be illegal in most of western Europe. So, perhaps a real cite for: \*1/ Any government in Western Europe ‘tolerating’ defacing synagogues and attacking Jews on the street. 2/ far right-wing parties are making a comeback in Europe.\* or just admit that you were shooting from the hip without any real evidence. ---
**Author:** ![december](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/838e76/32.png) [@december](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/december)\ **Post date:** [May 2, 2002, 6:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ashcroft-are-you-listening/106658/44 "2002-05-02T18:50:13Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Pjen \*or just admit that you were shooting from the hip without any real evidence. Yes, I was shooting from the hip, but the shot hit the target, according to [this article](http://www.spectator.co.uk/article.php3?table=old§ion=current&issue=2002-05-04&id=1824) from The Spectator by Canadian pundit, Mark Steyn. The article has facts to support its anti-European tone. > [@](#): > > Muslims kill thousands of Americans in America, and there’s a big anti-Muslim backlash …in France! Oh, and also Denmark, the Netherlands, Portugal and those other provinces of the land of sophistication where explicitly Islamophobic parties are now a significant part of the political calculus. > > What d’you reckon Le Pen’ll get this weekend? …France’s domestic intelligence agency has apparently advised the government that Le Pen will pull at least 30 per cent. That seems rather high for a chap BBC announcers, demonstrating their famous impartiality, describe as ‘virulent’. > > \ > > M. Le Pen is certainly ‘mean-spirited’; the synagogue burners and kosher-butcher shooter-uppers and Jewish schoolbus stoners are certainly violent. And somehow, when Messrs Patten and Vedrine were deploring American ‘simplisme’, it never occurred to us that their idea of sophistication was a culture in which the most interesting political question is which strain of anti-Semitism — anti-Jew or anti-Arab or anti-both — is more potent > > \ > > It’s true there seems to be a lot of [crime] over there. You’re six times more likely to be mugged in London than in New York. The Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea has a worse crime rate than Harlem. > > \ > > Thanks to Erfurt and Nanterre, you’re currently outpacing the Yanks at high-scoring gun massacres… > > \ > > The police in the German capital recently advised Jews not to go out in public wearing skullcaps or other identifying marks of their faith. Given that their predecessors were keener to mandate identifying marks — yellow stars, arm tattoos, etc. — perhaps we should look on the Berlin constabulary’s recommendations as progress. But are there any Germans minded to mimic those American women who took up the hijab in solidarity with their Muslim sisters? Perhaps you’d like to protest this rising tide of anti-Semitism by, say, wearing skullcaps in solidarity with your Jewish brothers? > > \ > > Suppose Pat Buchanan, never mind David Duke, got Jorg Haider’s 29 per cent, or Le Pen’s 17 per cent, or the Danish People’s party’s 12 per cent. Imagine the editorials you’d get from the Continent. You know what Pat got in the 2000 presidential election? 0.42 per cent. Yet the European assumption is always that every American politician is beholden to a vast herd of snarling, knuckle-dragging Calibans: thus, Guantanamo, as the Yorkshire Post saw it, ‘must be some sort of crude appeal to redneck, hillbilly America whose voters have to be kept on board’. ---
**Author:** ![Gadarene](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/e47c2d/32.png) [@Gadarene](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Gadarene)\ **Post date:** [May 2, 2002, 7:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ashcroft-are-you-listening/106658/45 "2002-05-02T19:15:18Z")
**december** , you’re back to op-ed punditry. Tsk tsk tsk… **wring** will be so disappointed in you. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Corrado](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/a88e4f/32.png) [@John\_Corrado](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Corrado)\ **Post date:** [May 2, 2002, 7:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ashcroft-are-you-listening/106658/46 "2002-05-02T19:35:38Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Kimstu \* > It’s hard to know what they could have done because it’s hard to know what they actually knew in advance. But there seem to be a lot of indications that rather than being shackled by the Constitution from taking the actions they wanted to take for the sake of terrorism prevention, the pre-9/11 federal government was mostly just not paying adequate attention to the terrorism threat. I agree that the intelligence community- as well as the Bush and Clinton administrations in managing, budgeting, and directing those agencies- failed big-time. However… > [@](#): > > …the FBI’s failure to alert the airlines that a ticket had been purchased by one of the U.S.S. Cole bombing suspects on their watch list… And what _exactly_ would the airlines have been able to do without being subject to a lawsuit? Could they have told the ‘suspect’ that he would not be allowed to fly upon a plane because he was a ‘suspect’- not formally charged, certainly not sent to a grand jury- in a different case? Would that not have been the subject of immediate outrage by civil rights groups and editorialists across the nation? If they had searched the suspect and found… nothing? Maybe a box-cutter? Does that somehow prove intent? > [@](#): > > > [@](#): > > > > \*A justice system that preserves the civil liberties of its citizens simply can’t prevent. \* > > I’m not sure I buy that. That was supposed to be the rationale behind the earlier expansion of federal powers in the “Anti-Terrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act” and the institution of “roving wiretaps” in the mid- to late '90s. That expansion also was supposed to be a tradeoff of decreased freedoms for increased safety, but it didn’t prevent 9/11. Should we go on indefinitely curtailing civil liberties ever further every time an enemy slips through the cracks? Or would it be more effective to keep civil liberties strong and concentrate on improving our foreign policy and intelligence system? Sigh. You _completely_ miss my point. My point is exactly the same as what you’re trying to argue- that one cannot trade civil liberty for security. I agree with that. But guess what? Most people don’t agree with us. Most people would be willing to give up their liberty on the off-chance that it gains them some security. Most people were screaming on 9/12 and 9/13 that **something be done** , and that something they meant wasn’t “accept that terrorist attacks will happen so long as we intend to be a free country.” And so liberties were curtailed. But what was the other option? Do you really think that had Bush- or, if you’re the kind that prefers the term “Dumbya”, **any** President- could have gone on television, stated, “These attacks will happen again and again, because we are free people and we cannot give up our freedoms for security”, and not been either immediately impeached or overthrown in mass demonstrations? As in the Great Depression, as in the Civil War, there was an overwhelming popular demand to do **something** , **anything**. And so Bush and Ashcroft round up some usual suspects and break some heads and bend the Constitution. But they can do that knowing that people will eventually calm down, and courts will eventually throw out their actions- no real harm, especially when compared to the violence that would have erupted in non-action. The same solution FDR found (twice); the same solution Lincoln used. [Fixed the coding. -JMCJ] ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [May 3, 2002, 5:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ashcroft-are-you-listening/106658/47 "2002-05-03T17:24:27Z")
A federal district judge in New York confidently opines that a Ninth Circuit opinion is ‘wrong’. Interestingly enough, her own decision cannot create any precedent, and is subject to appeal. If the Second Circuit decides as Judge Scheindlin did, this will create a conflict in the circuits – that is, in California, federal authorities may obtain a material witness warrant to secure a witness’ appearance before a grand jury, while in New York, they cannot. The situation would then become ripe for decision by ther Supreme Court. Judge Scheindlin’s opinion makes much of the phrase “criminal proceeding” as it is used in 18 U.S.C. § 3144, the material witness statue. She interprets this to mean a proceeding in which criminal charges have been filed, and not a grand jury proceeding, which merely presages the possible issuance of an indictment. However, “criminal proceeding” is a phrase that has been applied to grand jury proceedings many times in the past when the witness therein was the target of the grand jury investigation, and the grand jury process is held to the same level of due process as other critical stages in criminal prosecution. In other words, I don’t believe that this opinion is on as rock-solid grounds as some posters above seem to think. There is a fair chance that the material witness statute _will_ be held to permit such detentions, when it is shown that it may become impracticable to secure the presence of the witness by subpoena, and if a judicial officer orders the arrest of the person, and if the the testimony of the witness cannot adequately be secured by deposition – all of which happened here. - Rick ---
**Author:** ![Kimstu](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/ecd19e/32.png) [@Kimstu](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kimstu)\ **Post date:** [May 3, 2002, 10:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ashcroft-are-you-listening/106658/48 "2002-05-03T22:59:42Z")
**JC:** _And what exactly would the airlines have been able to do without being subject to a lawsuit?_ Well, they could have informed the FBI, which was actively looking for those particular suspects in order to question them but had not succeeded in locating them, when the suspects bought their tickets. FBI agents could have shown up at the boarding of the aircraft, and those suspects might never even have got on the plane—without any invasion of privacy on the part of the airlines. As this [article](http://www.webcom.com/hrin/magazine/la-watchlist.html) notes, > [@](#): > > When less significant crimes were suspected in recent years–including drug smuggling and theft–federal authorities have often tipped the airlines or sought their cooperation. > > Indeed, authorities have alerted American Airlines on numerous occasions to drug or theft suspects appearing on passenger lists, sources said. In at least a dozen instances, the airline has allowed the FBI to place agents within its work force to conduct undercover operations. \*But guess what? Most people don’t agree with us. Most people would be willing to give up their liberty on the off-chance that it gains them some security. Most people were screaming on 9/12 and 9/13 that something be done, and that something they meant wasn’t “accept that terrorist attacks will happen so long as we intend to be a free country.” And so liberties were curtailed. But what was the other option? Do you really think that had Bush- or, if you’re the kind that prefers the term “Dumbya”, any President- could have gone on television, stated, “These attacks will happen again and again, because we are free people and we cannot give up our freedoms for security”, and not been either immediately impeached or overthrown in mass demonstrations? As in the Great Depression, as in the Civil War, there was an overwhelming popular demand to do something, anything.\* (Note: I don’t refer to the POTUS by derogatory nicknames, nor do I consider him particularly stupid or incapable.) You seem to be assuming that when the populace “demands that something, anything” be done, what they’re demanding is the restriction of civil liberties; I don’t see that, myself. I agree that there was a strong public outcry post-9/11 to get some action taken, and that it wouldn’t have sat well with most people for the President to admit that such dangers are to some extent inescapable—though I seriously doubt that the reaction would have been anything like as dramatic as what you’re suggesting. But I don’t believe that the public demands couldn’t have been satisfied without curtailing liberties. I think that the heightened security measures that could be **legally and constitutionally** taken, such as increasing airport security, creating a Cabinet position and allocating new funds to deal with terrorism, cracking down on offshore money laundering that funnels funds to terrorists, etc. etc. etc., plus whatever military response was necessary, would have reassured citizens that the problem was being taken seriously. You’re assuming a dichotomy in which the only two possible options are (a) serious curtailment of liberties and (b) a helpless admission that hey, these things happen and there’s nothing we can do about it: in other words, that unconstitutional measures are what Bush and Ashcroft **have** to take or else the nation will crumble. I think that’s a false dichotomy. ---
**Author:** ![sailor](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/a587f6/32.png) [@sailor](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/sailor)\ **Post date:** [May 4, 2002, 9:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ashcroft-are-you-listening/106658/49 "2002-05-04T21:09:48Z")
The government _can_ take effective measures without infringing on people’s rights but these measures cannot prevent everything that may happen, only provide a reasonable level of security. Governments which go beyond this and step all over people’s rights to prevent terrorism or other unlawful acts _may_ have a slightly better chance but at a huge social cost which is never worth paying. In any case they still cannot guarantee absolute prevention. You only have to turn to countries like China or the Soviet Union to see a huge loss of civil liberties does not guarantee prevention of crime or terrorism and ensures losing all your civil rights. I am astounded that december does not get this. He defends a loss in civil rights in exchange for security but he doesn’t get the loss is real while the security is just a mirage. After reading the thread about the crazy military plans in the 60s to provoke a war with Cuba I am reinforced in my position that the more limited the power of the government, the more checks and balances, the better. Because you never know when some crazy guys acting to defend the country will go over the edge. ---
**Author:** ![sailor](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/a587f6/32.png) [@sailor](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/sailor)\ **Post date:** [May 4, 2002, 11:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ashcroft-are-you-listening/106658/50 "2002-05-04T23:24:34Z")
I just came acoss a [quote by Teddy Roosevelt] ([http://www.americanpresident.org/kotrain/courses/TR/TR\_In\_His\_Own\_Words.htm](http://www.americanpresident.org/kotrain/courses/TR/TR_In_His_Own_Words.htm)) which seems quite appropriate. “No man is justified in doing evil on the ground of expediency” He also said “Speak softly and carry a big stick; you will go far.” and “To announce that there must be no criticism of the President, or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public.” (1918) With other quotes I agree less so I won’t repeat them _\__ ---
**Author:** ![december](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/838e76/32.png) [@december](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/december)\ **Post date:** [May 5, 2002, 10:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ashcroft-are-you-listening/106658/51 "2002-05-05T22:31:14Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by sailor \* > I am astounded that december does not get this. He defends a loss in civil rights in exchange for security but he doesn’t get the loss is real while the security is just a mirage. [list=1] [li]According to **Bricker** , Ashcroft’s action may have been proper and legal. At the very least, it was plausibly legal.[/li][li]We have taken enormous losses in civil liberties during past wars, but afterwards full liberty was restored.[/li][li]I do not understand the statement, “security is just a mirage.” Can you amplify the meaning?[/li][/list=1] ---
**Author:** ![Guinastasia](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/guinastasia/32/5751_2.png) [@Guinastasia](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Guinastasia)\ **Post date:** [May 5, 2002, 10:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ashcroft-are-you-listening/106658/52 "2002-05-05T22:42:34Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by december \* > \*\* > We have taken enormous losses in civil liberties during past wars, but afterwards full liberty was restored. > \*\* Ask someone who spent time in the internment camps during WWII and see if they agree with you. :rolleyes: ---
**Author:** ![wring](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/838e76/32.png) [@wring](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/wring)\ **Post date:** [May 5, 2002, 11:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ashcroft-are-you-listening/106658/53 "2002-05-05T23:08:31Z")
> [@](#): > > at the very least it was plausibly legal yeppers, that’s what I want from our Attorney General - a goal of “plausibly legal”. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [May 6, 2002, 11:47am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ashcroft-are-you-listening/106658/54 "2002-05-06T11:47:32Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by wring \* > \*\* > > yeppers, that’s what I want from our Attorney General - a goal of “plausibly legal”. \*\* Why not? The Attorney General runs the Justice Department. He is not a neutral party. He is the prosecutor. His job is to zealously, but legally, represent the government in prosecuting accused criminals. Criminal statues are construed strictly against the government. It is the function of the judiciary to find facts and interpret law in the ultimate trial of an accused, after hearing zealous prosecution and zealous defense. It’s true that the sides are not mirror images – for example, the defense does not stop their work even if convinced of factual guilt, while the prosecutor has an independent duty to prosecute only the guilty, and factual innocence will cause the prosecutor to stop his efforts. But this does not forestall a prosecutor from making a legally cognizeable argument – in this case, with no controlling authority in the Second Circuit, and a Ninth Circuit case that supports the position - even if it’s dicta - there’s nothing wrong with arguing vigorously in support of the position. Wring, I suspect that what you mean is you’d prefer an Attorney General that supported your political position with regards to individual liberty. I don’t doubt it - I’m sure each of us would like government officials to support their view. But some of the responses above seem to suggest that Attorney General Ashcroft was acting improperly, unethically, or without deference to exsiting law. That’s not so, at least as far as the facts in this case. - Rick ---
**Author:** ![John\_Corrado](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/a88e4f/32.png) [@John\_Corrado](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Corrado)\ **Post date:** [May 6, 2002, 2:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ashcroft-are-you-listening/106658/55 "2002-05-06T14:28:49Z")
> [@](#): > > _originally posted by Kimstu_ > > JC:\* And what _exactly_ would the airlines have been able to do without being subject to a lawsuit?\* > > Well, they could have informed the FBI, which was actively looking for those particular suspects in order to question them but had not succeeded in locating them, when the suspects bought their tickets. FBI agents could have shown up at the boarding of the aircraft, and those suspects might never even have got on the plane—without any invasion of privacy on the part of the airlines. But the operative word there is “might”. How many of the 20 involved in the 9/11 attacks had active warrants out for them? Or, if they were only wanted for questioning, could the FBI have actively prevented them from boarding the plane? And again- had the FBI arrested or incarcerated the bombers on the morning of 9/11 on the flimsy excuse of “we needed to ask them some questions about a theft case”, wouldn’t all the laments in this thread about Ashcroft not caring for civil rights or the Constitution simply have been applied to him in regards for those arrested the morning of 9/10? Again- there was nothing our justice system could have done within the framework of the Constitution that would have prevented the 9/11 attack. > [@](#): > > (Note: I don’t refer to the POTUS by derogatory nicknames, nor do I consider him particularly stupid or incapable.) Understood; my apologies if you felt I was either talking down to or insulting you through that statement. > [@](#): > > You seem to be assuming that when the populace “demands that something, anything” be done, what they’re demanding is the restriction of civil liberties; I don’t see that, myself. I agree that there was a strong public outcry post-9/11 to get some action taken, and that it wouldn’t have sat well with most people for the President to admit that such dangers are to some extent inescapable—though I seriously doubt that the reaction would have been anything like as dramatic as what you’re suggesting. My perception may well be colored by living in the DC area and having friends who lived in the NYC area; fears of “what’s going to be next and when’s it going to happen?” ran damned high around here. > [@](#): > > But I don’t believe that the public demands couldn’t have been satisfied without curtailing liberties. I think that the heightened security measures that could be legally and constitutionally taken, such as increasing airport security, creating a Cabinet position and allocating new funds to deal with terrorism, cracking down on offshore money laundering that funnels funds to terrorists, etc. etc. etc., plus whatever military response was necessary, would have reassured citizens that the problem was being taken seriously. “Taken seriously”, yes. “Having immediate effect”- there’s the rub. All of the things you’ve mentioned were done, but implementation didn’t begin until at least a month after the attacks, and for some of those issues- increasing security at airports, increased funding for intelligence agencies- _true_ benefits won’t be seen for months yet to come. Rounding up “possible suspects”- that could be done immediately and show government action and response and seriousness in the wake of the attack. It just couldn’t be done particularly constitutionally. > [@](#): > > You’re assuming a dichotomy in which the only two possible options are (a) serious curtailment of liberties and (b) a helpless admission that hey, these things happen and there’s nothing we can do about it: in other words, that unconstitutional measures are what Bush and Ashcroft have to take or else the nation will crumble. I think that’s a false dichotomy. I don’t. Again, the three largest crises this country has faced- the Civil War, the Great Depression, World War II- were reacted to with a serious curtailment of liberties, or at least as serious as the one currently going on. And in two of these cases, the crises _were_ met with a “well, there’s nothing we can do”, and the country _did_ begin to crumble. James Buchanan was President when the South began to secede, and because he wouldn’t lift a finger, the Confederacy was able to embezzle a _great_ deal of munitions and equipment, which prolonged the Civil War by years- certainly, without that equipment, the Confederacy would have had _no_ hope to gain independence. Likewise, Hoover reacted to the Great Depression with “Constitutionally, there’s nothing the government can do, so we hope big business lands on its feet and takes care of the little people.” Hoover’s inaction and inability to see the government as a solution caused a huge upswing in the memberships of more radical organizations with more radical solutions, like the Communist Party, Long’s Populist Party, and followers of Father Coughlin. ---
**Author:** ![wring](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/838e76/32.png) [@wring](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/wring)\ **Post date:** [May 6, 2002, 5:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ashcroft-are-you-listening/106658/56 "2002-05-06T17:19:03Z")
actually, **Bricker** regardless of political ideology, I’d personally prefer that our Attorney General actually abide by the laws vs. **decembers’** suggestion that he acts in a ‘plausibly legal’ manner. That phrasing reminded me of a scene in “the Firm” where Cruise is asking “how far do you want the law bent”. The single person in charge of our Justice Department should be in the position of enforcing our laws, not bending them to suit his own political ideology, IMHO (understanding that he’s an appointed position yaddy yaddy yaddy.) ---
**Author:** ![sailor](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/a587f6/32.png) [@sailor](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/sailor)\ **Post date:** [May 6, 2002, 5:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ashcroft-are-you-listening/106658/57 "2002-05-06T17:53:34Z")
\>\> at the very least it was plausibly legal An English judge disagrees with you. He could not find the plausibility anywhere. \>\> I do not understand the statement, “security is just a mirage.” Can you amplify the meaning? What do you need explained? My point is that countries which gave up liberties to gain safety and order do not have any more of that, and they aften have less. Look at countries like China where they do not bother with legal formalities for criminals and terrorists. They execute more people than the rest of the world combined… and yet they have crime and terrorism. The loss of freedom does not buy them an exemption from crime and in the case of terrorism it may even make it worse. ---
**Author:** ![rjung](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/45deac/32.png) [@rjung](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/rjung)\ **Post date:** [May 6, 2002, 7:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ashcroft-are-you-listening/106658/58 "2002-05-06T19:15:09Z")
I keep wondering how strongly would **december** be defending Ashcroft’s actions if Ashcroft was going after him. Somehow I can’t quite picture this scenario: **Ding Dong** **december:** Yes? **John Ashcroft:** Mr. december? John Ashcroft, attorney general here. We suspect you might be a terrorist. **december:** I haven’t done anything illegal. **Ashcroft:** That’s not what our hunches say, sir. **december:** So what do you want? **Ashcroft:** I’m here to take you into custody, lock you up, ask a bunch of questions, and maybe let you go when I get some satisfactory answers. **december:** …okay. Let’s go. Honey, don’t wait up! ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [May 6, 2002, 9:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ashcroft-are-you-listening/106658/59 "2002-05-06T21:21:19Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by wring \* > \*\*actually, **Bricker** regardless of political ideology, I’d personally prefer that our Attorney General actually abide by the laws vs. **decembers’** suggestion that he acts in a ‘plausibly legal’ manner. That phrasing reminded me of a scene in “the Firm” where Cruise is asking “how far do you want the law bent”. > > The single person in charge of our Justice Department should be in the position of enforcing our laws, not bending them to suit his own political ideology, IMHO (understanding that he’s an appointed position yaddy yaddy yaddy.) \*\* Well, I’m not sure “bending” or “plausibly legal” are fair characterizations. Ashcroft makes a colorable argument, supported by a decision in another federal circuit, and not contradicted by any case law in the circuit in question. There doesn’t seem to me to be any bending here. Indeed, even Ashcroft’s appeal won’t bend the law, since the Justice Department is entitled to seek appellate review of the adverse decision. Indeed, as I said earlier, I feel Judge Scheindlin’s decision was in error, and the Justice Department’s appeal will permit the circuit court to correctly apply the law. Of course, that may not happen. In that case, the Supreme Court may act to resolve the conflict in the circuits. Then, finally, the definitive word will be had on the issue. Until then, I don’t see any bending here. - Rick ---
**Author:** ![wring](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/838e76/32.png) [@wring](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/wring)\ **Post date:** [May 6, 2002, 10:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ashcroft-are-you-listening/106658/60 "2002-05-06T22:16:53Z")
**Rick** the ‘plausibly legal’ position was advanced by **december** , characertizing Ashcroft. My point was that we’d hope for something a little closer to ‘law enforcing’ than ‘plausibly legal’ from The Attorney General. I thought it peculiar that some one who apparently is in agreement w/Ashcrofts’ position would use that particular term, since it does, admitedly, sound, well, not complimentary. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ashcroft-are-you-listening/106658.md?page=2) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ashcroft-are-you-listening/106658.md?page=4)