Holy fucking shit, Ashcroft is a loon

[Mister_Armageddon]

You know why people keep calling Ashcroft a Nazi? Because it’s true: http://www.commondreams.org/views02/0814-05.htm

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.

At first I was hoping this article was the demented ramblings of some conspiracy theorist. But I notice it got published in the LA Times, which lends it a certain amount of credibility.

Oh, and it gets better! Moving on to another paragraph, we find out:

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.”

So in other words, Herr Ashcroft can deny American citizens their right to a fair trial, even if there’s no evidence they intend to commit a crime. Hell, they can even admit there’s no evidence and keep them locked up! I’m sure the Japanese families detained during World War II can identify. :rolleyes:

Oh, and it’s nice to notice that this story got no attention from the mainstream media at all, while they feel free to constantly update us on the condition of Jason Priestly. Or maybe they figure it would be “unpatriotic” to criticize the attorney general in this trying time. After all, what’s a few violations of the Constitution in the fight on terrorism?

This fuckhead has to be stopped.

[Bricker]

You moron. You absolute fucking moron.

Don’t you dare compare Ashcroft’s actions to the murder of millions of people.

In any event, Ashcroft’s actions are, for the moment, completely within the rule of law. While the federal DISTRICT judge has ruled against the government on numerous points, the government has appealed the the CIRCUIT court, which has overruled the district court and remanded to it for further findings.

You may disagree - and obviously do - with the approach the government is taking. But you clearly possess not the slightest clue how the legal system works, and aren’t shy about displaying your ignorance. Nor have you the slightest sense of proportion in equating the debatable but thus far legal actions of the Attorney General with the systematic attempted extermination of a race of people.

You sicken me. Get a sense of history, and come back with some rational comaprisons, idiot.

• Rick

[Avalonian]

*Originally posted by Bricker *
Don’t you dare compare Ashcroft’s actions to the murder of millions of people.

Little sensitive, Bricker? I didn’t see where Mister Armageddon compared Ashcroft’s actions to anyone. Care to point out what you mean? All he implied was that Ashcroft is violating Constitutional rights by circumventing due process… and hey, you know what? He is.

But I guess you think getting mad about it and flaming someone else is better.

[Beagle]

Tranquilizer, anyone? I find it interesting that the author of the article is Jonathan Turley, a conservative. He was steadfastly against Clinton during Monicagate. He represented those injured on the job at Area 51. I think he calls them as he sees them.

Declaring citizens to be enemy combatants, IMO, is dangerous and exemplifies the slippery slope as well as anything. Once the AG has unfettered power, well, he has unfettered power. That is not good. However, I do agree that the legal system seems to be working and it is too early to make a legitimate comparison between what happened in Nazi Germany to now.

[Monty]

The comparison, Avalonian, was in the OP’s equating Ashcroft to the Nazis. In case you’ve forgotten, the Nazis ran death camps. Bricker was quite civil in his response to the pathetic OP and did not flame at all.

[Bricker]

*Originally posted by Avalonian *
Little sensitive, Bricker? I didn’t see where Mister Armageddon compared Ashcroft’s actions to anyone. Care to point out what you mean? All he implied was that Ashcroft is violating Constitutional rights by circumventing due process… and hey, you know what? He is.

But I guess you think getting mad about it and flaming someone else is better.

*Originally posted by Mister Armageddon *
You know why people keep calling Ashcroft a Nazi? Because it’s true:

The inapt comparison, Avalonian, is in the very first sentence of the OP.

• Rick

[Airman_Doors_USAF]

Well, let’s see…

He called Ashcroft a Nazi, and he implied tht Ashcroft was intent upon recreating the Internment camps of WWII.

Pretty clear to me.

As for my opinion, well, the jury’s still out on that. I think that things that seemed rational when we were pissed off and we wanted to satisfy our national bloodlust are starting to appear wrong as we begin to come to our senses. Some of this stuff makes people understandably uneasy.

I’m not yet ready to condemn Ashcroft, but I’m not terribly happy with what he’s doing right now, either.

[Avalonian]

*Originally posted by Monty *
The comparison, Avalonian, was in the OP’s equating Ashcroft to the Nazis. In case you’ve forgotten, the Nazis ran death camps.

Ooops, my bad… somehow I missed the “Nazi” line at the top. It’s been a long day, sorry. Consider that bit of my earlier post retracted.

*Originally posted by Monty *
**Bricker was quite civil in his response to the pathetic OP and did not flame at all. **

Here I disagree, though. I’d say that saying “You sicken me” and calling someone an “idiot” as Bricker did constitutes some sort of flame. shrugs Call me crazy, but that’s an attack against the person, not the post.

[Una_Persson]

I would like to know something:

Is Yaser Esam Hamdi a US citizen or not?

This Georgetown Professor says he is. But CNN says it is unclear. First they call him one, then at the end they say:

“Even though there is a probability Hamdi is a U.S. citizen, the president has declared him an unlawful combatant.” (emphasis added)

http://www.cnn.com/2002/LAW/06/26/hamdi.hearing/

Here is a World Socialist Website article with a frightening headline:

Bush claims right to jail US citizens indefinitely, without charges or hearing

But if you read the text, you find this:

“Yaser Esam Hamdi, a 21-year-old detainee who was captured in Afghanistan and brought to the US detention camp at the Guantanamo Bay naval base in Cuba. Earlier this year, after it was discovered that he was born in Louisiana and in all likelihood is entitled to US citizenship, he was transferred to a Navy brig in Virginia.”(emphasis added)

“In all likelihood is entitled to” is not equal to US Citizen. In “all likelihood”, I am entitled to UK citizenship. Doesn’t mean I am a citizen.

Here’s a UPI article in the Washington times that says it is unclear:

http://www.washtimes.com/upi-breaking/26062002-112945-1226r.htm

But CBS News pronounced him a citizen 12 days beforehand:

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2002/06/14/news/opinion/courtwatch/main512250.shtml

Is it relevant that he is a citizen or not with respect to his protections under law, especially in a “time of war”? It seems that under the law, it is relevant, with respect to what sort of processes you are subject to. And yet, we have a Georgetown Professor on an extremely partisan website (the only one quoted in the OP), stating “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.”

“Identical”, except one is a citizen, and the other…well, we don’t know - do we?

[Airman_Doors_USAF]

…WHOOSH…

[chula]

The word “Nazi” is commonly used to refer to an uptight person or a jerk, especially a right-wing jerk. It’s pretty clear that Mr A wasn’t actually claiming that Ashcroft is a member of the Nazi party. You can object to this use of the word, but that would make you a Nazi Nazi (kind of like a soup Nazi, only about the word Nazi instead of soup).

The comparison he did make was to putting the Japanese in internment camps. That was “legal” too, according to the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court was wrong, just as any court that rules in favor of Ashcroft’s policies would be.

[Beagle]

J. Turley, conservative (I swear, I’ve seen this guy before) law professor at GWU:

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.

Given this, who cares if Hamdi is a citizen? Precedent is precedent. If the rule is citizens can be declared combatants, that is the rule. A rule that would simply beg for abuse. But don’t take my word for it, Turley again

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.

[Qwertyasdfg]

Ok, first, I hope that this article is an EXTREME exaggeration (although I wouldn’t put it past Ashcroft, the fucking prick.) Of course, I would like to know when Ashcroft actually “disclosed this”, to whom, and what he actually said. The article seems light on cites.

As for the Nazi comparison:
Hitler rounded up citizens and put them in camps. Ashcroft (ostensibly) wants to round up people. To this extent, I’d say the comparison is valid. Mister never actually compared the supposed round-ups to genocide. Calm down.

[Una_Persson]

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.

No, the case of Hamdi will only help to determine if US citizens can be held without charges if he is a US Citizen.

Is my question really that hard? Is he, or is he not, a full, legal, US Citizen?

I’m not debating the seriousness and scary overtones here - and downright scary everything - that camps for citizens (AND for non-citizens too) means.

But don’t talk down to me like I haven’t read the links. I have, and I’ve found a key fact that is lacking a clear explaination here.

[Sublight]

*Originally posted by Bricker *
Don’t you dare compare Ashcroft’s actions to the murder of millions of people.

If we’re going to be absolutely literal-minded about this, keep in mind that a Nazi didn’t murder millions of people. It took lots of similarly-minded people and a nation of willing accomplices to manage that.

Is that where we’ll end up if Ashcroft’s plans start gaining momentum and popular support? I don’t know, but I believe his actions are dangerous enough that he should be stopped before we have to find out.

[minty_green]

Ashcroft isn’t a Nazi. He’s just a fascist motherfucker.

[light_strand]

Anthracite yes he is a US citizen, regardless of how much the powers-that-be would like it otherwise.

From the INS website:

A citizen of the United States is a native-born, foreign-born, or naturalized person who owes allegiance to the United States and who is entitled to its protection. In addition to the naturalization process, the United States recognizes the U.S. citizenship of individuals according to two fundamental principles: jus soli, or right of birthplace, and jus sanguinis, or right of blood.

The 14th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution guarantees citizenship at birth to almost all individuals born in the United States or in U.S. jurisdictions, according to the principle of jus soli. Certain individuals born in the United States, such as children of foreign heads of state or children of foreign diplomats, do not obtain U.S. citizenship under jus soli.

http://www.ins.usdoj.gov/graphics/services/natz/citizen.htm

[chula]

As I understand it, he was born in the United States, he’s a citizen. (See 14th Amendment.) There are very few cases in which a person can be stripped of his citizenship, and the government has the burden of proving that these acts were voluntary. Have anyone cited any reason why Hamdi may have lost his citizenship?

[minty_green]

Anthracite, Hamdi appears to have been born in the United States, which would make him a citizen by birth. There seems to be some question whether he later lost that citizenship, presumably by becoming a citizen of another country. This might be a case in which the government has decided not to “tolerate” dual citizenship.

Link to Cecil’s column on renouncing U.S. citizenship: http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?postid=2366279#post2366279

[minty_green]

Oops. Linked to my own response page. Try the link below for Cecil’s column.

http://www.straightdope.com/classics/a4_229.html