Ashcroft, are you listening?

Great Debates
21

>> Yes, the judge made a ruling, but it may be appealed. Do you think an appeals judge should reinstate the perjury charge?

::sigh:: . . . . . :: Loooong sigh::

december, I have no hope you will ever get anything. The judge dis not dismiss the perjury charge. OK? I will repeat slowly: The judge did not dismiss the perjury charge. What the judge did is declare the man had been imprisoned illegally and therefore the evidence obtained at the time was inadmissible in court. Do you understand that? Therefore a superior court cannot reinstate any charges. What it could do is find the man was not imprisoned illegally which might have the effect of making the evidence admissible. So quit making straw men.

The point is a man has been imprissoned unlawfully by an overzealous government. Do you think it is a good thing?

I would like to see some convincing evidence that proves: a) European countries are tolerating “defacing synogogues and attacking Jews on the street” and b) violent crime is worse in European countries than in the US.

I am only sorry this thread isn’t in the pit so I could be more open about my feelings.

22

um sailor according to my link at CNN, the judge did dismiss the perjury charge, and that said that he’d been illegally detained.

So, according to the judge, the FBI illegally detained him, did not allow him to know he could leave, obtained ‘consent’ to searches involuntarily, the evidence thereforehad to be suppressed, therefore, there’s no evidence to sustain the charge of perjury.

23

Actually, if you’re willing to take a really bizzarre look at it, I think Ashcroft is sly as a fox with this one.
I’ll admit right off that most of what Ashcroft is trying to do is unconstitutional, anti-civil liberties, and spooky.

So were all of the measures FDR passed in the early days of the New Deal- work programs, Alphabet Soup, etc. The Supreme Court found them unconstitutional. Right-wingers not merely decried them, but considered FDR a danger to the Republic for trying to get them instituted.
Let’s take stock. On 9-11, over 3000 people were killed in a terrorist attack. I have yet to see a convincing argument made by anyone that there was anything legal the FBI or any authority could have done to prevent those attacks. Airport security? Box cutters weren’t illegal, and making them illegal wouldn’t prevent a future attack. Terrorist warning lists? Yeah, sure, the ACLU wouldn’t scream its head off- rightly so- if certain people weren’t allowed to fly because of allegations of suspicion.

Quite frankly, despite all of the movies where brilliant detectives bust in on the criminal just before he dispatches his next victim, justice and law are about sweeping up and dispatching punishment, not prevention. A justice system that preserves the civil liberties of its citizens simply can’t prevent.
Now. It’s 9/12. You’re President. Do you tell the nation, “Well, this was horrible, but this is the price we pay for being free and living in the modern world. Terrorists will strike, and they will kill more; we can fight them somewhat by destroying their sources of income and training bases in the world, but for the most part, we’re condemned to have more people die” and watch the country fall apart into nervous paroxyms; or do you say to your AG “Do something. Anything. Look busy, and we’ll pretend that it helps while we go after the foreign elements.”

It’s a national crisis, and in order to salvage the system- in order to convince people that they should have faith in the system- Ashcroft is taking unConstitutional steps. And he’ll be batted down, as he has been so far. And either things will calm down- no terrorist strikes, no major events- and the issue will fade away; or what happened to FDR happens- things don’t get better (in our current analogy, another serious terrorist attack), and Bush forces the court- through appointments or packing- to accept the Ashcroft measures. I seriously expect it to be the former.

24

I just wish that I was confident that Ashcroft (and his ilk, more on that in a sec) was actually being sly in his actions, rather then as it seems to me, carrying out his agenda.

I don’t merely accuse Ashcroft, he’s merely fortunate (lousy word choice but apt) to have had 9-11 happen on his watch. Many of the same changes brought by the Patriot act and other changes were sought before he got office but had been succesfully kept from being instituted.

25

interesting theory John except for the cost IRT our allies etc. I agree there was nothing (short of a memo from OBL saying ‘oh, by the way, planning on flying???’) that could have happened pre 9/11 to prevent it (in that regard anyhow), however, post 9/11 there was a world wide sense of injustice.

Our allies, of course, were with us. But the outpouring of support from countries generally not considered to be USA friendly was astounding. (to me at least).

Since then, of course, w/ some of our actions, even countries that are traditionally strongly allied w/us are starting to hedge. For example, check out the thread about the GB judge. We’re appearing heavy handed and w/little positive to show for it.

26

wring, that’s not the way I interpret it. I think the ruling is that he was held unlawfully and evidence was obtained unlawfully and as a consequence of that it is tainted and cannot be used to support the charge against him. It is not possible to reinstate the charge without first overturning the first part of the ruling which is that the whole exercise was not legal. That’s the way I see it.

I agree with John that sometimes perception is everything even if the gestures are empty or even negative. Banning nail clippers and eyelash curlers fell in that category of empty gestures that make people feel like their government is doing something. But this type of thing we are talking about will come back to bite you.

27

sailor scanning one of the two pdf’s linked the article you cited, the first 18 pages are discussing the events leading up to his detention, focusing on the issue of consent to search. Doesn’t really matter, tho’. in either case, the ‘evidence’ substantiating any possible perjury charge seemed to have been illegally obtained.

28

JC: I have yet to see a convincing argument made by anyone that there was anything legal the FBI or any authority could have done to prevent those attacks.

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. (Witness the administration’s neglect of the recommendations of the February 2001 Rudman-Hart Commission on terrorism, 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 more systemic errors of judgement like favoring “sigint” over “humint” investments in intelligence gathering and shrinking the pool of intelligence operatives with competence in Arabic and other Asian languages.)

*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?

I incline to the latter view—particularly since, as I noted in a related thread, terrorism prevention is a lot more difficult if innocent people who might be in a position to volunteer valuable information end up being more afraid of the government than they are of terrorist attacks. Suppose you’re a member of an extended family with a lot of recent immigrants and you get a little nervous because your brother-in-law’s cousin tells you his job now “requires” him to get a hazmat trucker’s license, for no good reason that you can figure out. When would you be more likely to mention this to the authorities?

-If you felt confident that BILC’s and everybody else’s rights would be respected and that the innocent would have nothing to fear from the law?

-Or if you had cause to fear that even if he was completely unconnected with terrorism, BILC might easily be detained incommunicado for months and perhaps your brother-in-law would too just on account of having associated with BILC and your sister’s family might lose their income and their property and maybe be deported even though none of them had done anything wrong?

I know which situation would have me hesitating longer before picking up the phone.

29

december: Not only was the thirty-year-old Ninth Circuit decision non-binding, but it’s barely even persuasive. C’mon.

30

In what way was that decision unpersuasive?

31

>> Assuming that the detention was illegal, I would still question the remedy – dismissing the perjury charge.

december, how can you not understand that there is no other way? Evidence obtained illegally cannot be used. What are you questioning? Are you proposing the government should be allowed to break the law?

>> I’m sorry that Ashcroft exceeded his authority, but freeing a guilty terrorist potentially punishes you and me.

No, respecting the rule of law protects you and me. Invalidating evidence obtained illegally protects you and me. And if a guilty man went free because of this then the fault and responsibility lie squarely on Mr Ashcroft and nobody else. The solution for breaking the law once is not to break it again.

BTW, I am still waiting for your proof that a) European countries are tolerating “defacing synogogues and attacking Jews on the street” and b) violent crime is worse in European countries than in the US.

Your idea that Europeans need to “put their house in order” is quite amusing. You really think the US is better than Europe in every way?

32

This intrigued me, as she has a husband Jerry who is also a judge, but I can’t find any connection online.

Whoever Judge Shira is, I’m glad she served Ashcroft a cold dessert.

33

Legally speaking? The Ninth Circuit is out west. Judge Scheindlin is a judge in the Second Circuit, which includes New York. A thirty-year-old decision from the other side of the country is certainly a data point to be considered for a NY federal judge, but she need not put any stock in it whatsoever.

Judge Scheindlin begins her opinion, United States v. Awadallah, 2002 WL 755793 (S.D.N.Y.), with three quotations. Y’all might find them instructive:

–Ex Parte Milligan, 71 U.S. (4 Wall.) 2, 120-21 (1866)

–Kennedy v. Mendoza-Martinez, 372 U.S. 144, 165 (1963)

–Unites States v. Robel, 389 U.S. 258, 264 (1967)
Here’s what Scheindlin has to say specifically about the Ninth Circuit case:

“Dicta,” by the way, december, is commentary in a court’s opinion that is not essential to the holding itself, and may therefore be ignored–even, generally, by courts upon whom the decision is binding. Scheindlin shows at length that the Bacon dicta was based on an incorrect reading of the statutory language and legislative history. If you like, I’ll quote extensively from that portion of the opinion.

34

The alleged perjury was Awadallah claiming that he didn’t know the terrorists. Presumably that statement was made under oath to the authorities. No illegally obtained evidence so far. Somehow, the authorities believe they have evidence that hedid know the defendants. I don’t see where that evidence came from an illegal search (but I may be wrong.)

As I read the article, the judge wasn’t refusing to let them use illegally obtained evidence. She was “punishing the prosecutor” for illegally detaining Awadallah. The punishment was to prohibit the perjury prosecution – prohibited even if they could get untainted evidence contradicting Awadallah’s sworn statement.

I’m discussing what the judge should do when she finds that a detention was not legally permitted. There are other conceivable remedies. If the detention was clearly illegal, the people who did it could be charged with a crime. (I doubt that the would be convicted in this case.) Awadallah may well have grounds for a lawsuit.

Actually your statement and mine are both correct.

Wrong on two counts. First of all, if he’s really a dangerous terrorist and Ashcroft hadn’t held him, then he might have harmed us. Second, if this man committed mass murder, it would be cold comfort to the victims.[quoite].BTW, I am still waiting for your proof that a) European countries are tolerating “defacing synogogues and attacking Jews on the street” and b) violent crime is worse in European countries than in the US.
[/quote]
Regarding (a), there have been dozens of attacks on Jews, synogogues, Jewish organizations, etc. in France alone over the last several months. I recently read that in all these cases, there has not been a single arrest.

Regarding (b), I didn’t made that claim, as you know. The US has a high rate of violent crime-- no doubt much higher than Europe.

The remark you objected to was a bit of a joke. Seriously, I do think that some European spokespersons tend to lecture the US as if they were morally superior.

Gaudere, thanks for the info. I agree with what you said about the 1971 decision. Ron Kuby’s discussion on the radio also argued that the 1971 decision was wrong and Scheindlin was right. Kuby pointed out that Scheindlin’s decision isn’t binding, so Ashcroft could continue to hold people on the basis as he held Awadallah. It will be ineresting to see what happens if Scheindlin’s decision is appealed. IANAL but my guess is that her decision regarding the illegality of the detention would be upheld.

35

ahem What’s wrong with this picture? …No, it’s not the fact that you agree with me.

Hint: think demon pigs.

36

:confused:

37

Keep re-reading the last two posts (1:07 am and 1:10 am). It’ll come to you.

38

Yep. Sorry. :frowning:

Well, it’s awfully late here on the East Coast…

39

It sure is. :smiley:

40

Cite please for any government in Western Europe ‘tolerating’ defacing synagogues and attacking Jews on the street.

I will admit that they have happened, but to say that they are tolerated, you will have to show evidence of more than this - that the government acted in such a way to ensure that the police and judiciary did not followup on these clearly illegal acts.

Of course, if what you are saying is that European countries are abiding by the rule of law and due process in following up these crimes and not bending the rules to meet the ends of the executive, then I would agree that we as a continent are ‘tolerating’ this.

But if ‘we’ were doing so, we would be making ourselves as evil as Ashcroft, and, just maybe, Europeans are not so willing to abuse their laws as Ashcroft seems to be.

What can be stated and supported is that Ashcroft is making basic constitutional procedures look meaningless and acting in a manner that, were it directed against Jews in the way it is directed against moslems, would be seen as incredibly anti-semitic. (This sudden realization is worth a separate post, which I am sure that you will join- but with cites this time please.)

And, another point, being anti-semitic does not require being right-wing; stupidity and cupidity are not the sole province of the right-wing.

And I would again request a cite for your original accusation (which you have now subtly changed.) You originally said:

‘No wonder far right-wing parties are making a comeback in Europe.’

I repeat: cite?.

Or do you just offer opinions without any support from the real world?