# Holy fucking shit, Ashcroft is a loon **URL:** \ **Category:** The BBQ Pit\ **Created:** [August 15, 2002, 3:11am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/holy-fucking-shit-ashcroft-is-a-loon/123955 "2002-08-15T03:11:45Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![Beagle](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/85f322/32.png) [@Beagle](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Beagle)\ **Post date:** [August 15, 2002, 4:38am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/holy-fucking-shit-ashcroft-is-a-loon/123955/21 "2002-08-15T04:38:32Z")
so Hamdi’s citizenship affects him, agreed, but not the rule established through precedent. Let’s say both Padilla and Hamdi are not citizens. Then the same issue will arise when Asscroft tries to imprison another U.S. citizen, which he apparently is wont to do. So, yes, Hamdi’s citizenship is relevant. But, no matter how that issue is resolved the problem will still exist. Of course it is better for Hamdi if he is a citizen, so I don’t see him fighting that determination. We know already that foreign enemy combatants can be held as POWs have always been held. This brings up that old “illegal combatants” thing Bush and Asscroft argued for. I’ll let that lay for now. I think the court, by remanding for further review, is setting up a legal slap in the face for Mr. Asscroft. I hope so anyway. ---
**Author:** ![chula](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/a4c791/32.png) [@chula](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/chula)\ **Post date:** [August 15, 2002, 4:38am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/holy-fucking-shit-ashcroft-is-a-loon/123955/22 "2002-08-15T04:38:40Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by minty green \* > \*\*Ashcroft isn’t a Nazi. He’s just a fascist motherfucker. \*\* I know lots of people who have sex with mothers and don’t you dare compare them to Ashcroft. You fucking moron. ---
**Author:** ![Una\_Persson](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/una_persson/32/346_2.png) [@Una\_Persson](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Una_Persson)\ **Post date:** [August 15, 2002, 4:44am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/holy-fucking-shit-ashcroft-is-a-loon/123955/23 "2002-08-15T04:44:02Z")
OK, that clears up my confusion on why the news seems to be confused as well… Thanks! ---
**Author:** ![chula](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/a4c791/32.png) [@chula](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/chula)\ **Post date:** [August 15, 2002, 4:51am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/holy-fucking-shit-ashcroft-is-a-loon/123955/24 "2002-08-15T04:51:30Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by 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.** Acquiring citizenship in another country alone is not ground for loss of US citizenship. The government must also show that the decision was made freely and that the person intended to relinquish his US citizenship. ---
**Author:** ![minty\_green](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/f6c823/32.png) [@minty\_green](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/minty_green)\ **Post date:** [August 15, 2002, 4:57am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/holy-fucking-shit-ashcroft-is-a-loon/123955/25 "2002-08-15T04:57:13Z")
And my guess is that there’s some reason to believe–or at least for the government to argue–that’s what happened in Hamdi’s case. ---
**Author:** ![Mister\_Armageddon](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/858c86/32.png) [@Mister\_Armageddon](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mister_Armageddon)\ **Post date:** [August 15, 2002, 5:01am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/holy-fucking-shit-ashcroft-is-a-loon/123955/26 "2002-08-15T05:01:35Z")
OK, perhaps I was overstating things in calling Ashcroft a Nazi. But that article scared the hell out of me, and I posted rashly without thinking it through. For that I apologize. However. The similarities between this and the Japanese internment camps during World War II and the proposal from Ashcroft are undeniable, and the Hamdi case could set a dangerous precedent. I repeat, this man has not been charged with anything, and even the government admits they don’t have the evidence to make any possible charges stick anyway. The fact that Ashcroft would even consider this insanity is either a sign of how paranoid this country is getting after September 11, or that Ashcroft is dangerously unqualified to hold his office. In either case, I hope to God the courts can straighten this out. And then I’m reminded that they didn’t the last time this sort of thing came up, and get even more edgy. I mean, I’m not normally the paranoid type, but seeing this kind of stuff in print is enough to keep even me up nights. ---
**Author:** ![Beagle](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/85f322/32.png) [@Beagle](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Beagle)\ **Post date:** [August 15, 2002, 5:08am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/holy-fucking-shit-ashcroft-is-a-loon/123955/27 "2002-08-15T05:08:38Z")
Trying to categorize the disparate ways people can be treated by the government in a “time of war.” 1. POWs: held according to the Geneva Convention and other international law. These combatants generally are not U.S. citizens. We could call these folks “legal combatants.” Note, POWs cannot be tried, except for war crimes as defined by international law. Shooting people is expected in war. 2. Defendants: You know, the usual. Right to remain silent, due process, attorney, etc… This is how we, as U.S. citizens, expect to be punished for wrongdoing. Asscroft does not want some U.S. Citizens to fall into the two preceding categories, apparently. 1. Illegal combatants: These folks presumably would not be U.S. citizens. Unlike POWs, they could be tried in some kind of tribunal and punished. Nor would they have the rights of defendants. This is a controversial position that the administration has taken, denying some combatants the rights of POWs. 2. Some new category for U.S. citizens: No rights as per POWs, or defendants. I guess we could call them “illegal citizens,” or something. This seems to be where Asscroft is going. That is the best I can do, and I could be wrong. ---
**Author:** ![Beagle](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/85f322/32.png) [@Beagle](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Beagle)\ **Post date:** [August 15, 2002, 6:47am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/holy-fucking-shit-ashcroft-is-a-loon/123955/28 "2002-08-15T06:47:35Z")
In 3) “Nor would they have the rights of defendants” should read “Nor would they have **all** the rights of defendants.” I think this is important because the government has said that there would be some of the usual constitutional protections for those facing a tribunal. Therefore, what I originally said was overstated. Still, those facing tribunals would lack many of the protections defendants in courts in the United States take for granted. ---
**Author:** ![chique](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/4491bb/32.png) [@chique](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/chique)\ **Post date:** [August 15, 2002, 8:26am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/holy-fucking-shit-ashcroft-is-a-loon/123955/29 "2002-08-15T08:26:43Z")
This is new news to me. I just have a somewhat different take on it, and hope someone can explain this to me. Lindh, and American citizen, was an al-Quaeda foot soldier and, after his capture, was taken into custody and sits in a Virginia jail, yes? A couple of hundred non-American citizens, all al-Quaeda foot solders were, after their captures, taken into custody and sit in an internment camp in Gitmo. Hamdi, who may or may not be an American citizen, was an al-Quaeda foot soldier and, after his capture, was taken into custody and sits in a Navy brig. Lindh I don’t really get, but I do see how some twisting of legal semantics could lead to a federal courthouse. The couple of hundred non-American citizens I get, even though they’re not exactly under arrest nor exactly POWs. Why is Hamdi not in one or the other? What is it about his case that puts him in a military brig in Norfolk? ---
**Author:** ![sailor](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/a587f6/32.png) [@sailor](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/sailor)\ **Post date:** [August 15, 2002, 9:59am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/holy-fucking-shit-ashcroft-is-a-loon/123955/30 "2002-08-15T09:59:39Z")
In the meanwhile [Israel is trying Marwan Barghouti in a civilian court](http://www.cnn.com/2002/WORLD/meast/08/14/mideast/index.html) with all legal guarantees. Seeing that the situation in Israel is much more serious than in the US and that Barghouti is accused of serious terrorism, I have to recognise Israel for doing the right thing. ---
**Author:** ![Broomstick](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/broomstick/32/246_2.png) [@Broomstick](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Broomstick)\ **Post date:** [August 15, 2002, 10:32am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/holy-fucking-shit-ashcroft-is-a-loon/123955/31 "2002-08-15T10:32:06Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by chique \* > This is new news to me. I just have a somewhat different take on it, and hope someone can explain this to me. > > Lindh, and American citizen, was an al-Quaeda foot soldier and, after his capture, was taken into custody and sits in a Virginia jail, yes? > > A couple of hundred non-American citizens, all al-Quaeda foot solders were, after their captures, taken into custody and sit in an internment camp in Gitmo. > > Hamdi, who may or may not be an American citizen, was an al-Quaeda foot soldier and, after his capture, was taken into custody and sits in a Navy brig. If Hamdi was born on US soil his is a US citizen by birth. Children born in the US of foreign parents can legally maintain dual citizenship until a certain age (pretty sure it’s either 18 or 21), at which point the government would like them to decide one way or the other. However, a lot of people don’t bother to make this decision. The fact he grew up in the Middle East is irrelevant - he’s still a citizen. > [@](#): > > Lindh I don’t really get, but I do see how some twisting of legal semantics could lead to a federal courthouse. The couple of hundred non-American citizens I get, even though they’re not exactly under arrest nor exactly POWs. Why is Hamdi not in one or the other? What is it about his case that puts him in a military brig in Norfolk? He’s a test case. Ashcroft and the administration are trying to see what they can get away with. Keep this in mind - the detainees at Gitmo _have_ been visited by outsiders, even foreign representatives, to check on their conditions. They have been permitted to write letters home and notify their relatives of their captivity. Hamdi is being held _incommunicado_. He has _no_ access to _anyone_ outside his jailers. This court case winding it’s way through the system is _just to get him a visit by a public defender_. He could be sitting in comfort. He could be beaten every night. We just don’t know. The potential for abuse is _enormous_ The New York Times and the Washington Post have both been publishing stories about this case every couple of day.s And if a court determines that the US government _does_ have a “right” to hold a US citizen incommunicado indefinitely, with no access to counsel, with no charges against them, and no trial, they have just repeal the Bill of Rights and we are no longer living in a free country. It pisses me off people are so complacent about this. THIS IS MAJOR STUFF, PEOPLE. If the current administration has a means to incarcerate people who disagree with its positions we are all in trouble. In fact, Ashcroft is committing treason by disregarding the Bill of Rights and the Constitution. HE should be sitting in a brig. (By the way - if you don’t see any more posts from me, I’m probably spending an indefinite in time Virgina and a “secure location”) ---
**Author:** ![Cheesesteak](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/cheesesteak/32/3694_2.png) [@Cheesesteak](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Cheesesteak)\ **Post date:** [August 15, 2002, 11:14am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/holy-fucking-shit-ashcroft-is-a-loon/123955/32 "2002-08-15T11:14:21Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Broomstick \* > \*\* Children born in the US of foreign parents can legally maintain dual citizenship until a certain age (pretty sure it’s either 18 or 21), at which point the government would like them to decide one way or the other. However, a lot of people don’t bother to make this decision. The fact he grew up in the Middle East is irrelevant - he’s still a citizen. \*\* Presumably, after that “certain age”, it is no longer legal to maintain dual citizenship, no? Otherwise, that whole age statement is completely meaningless, one can keep dual or treble or quadruple citizenship, for that matter, as long as you live. It is possible to give up your citizenship in preference to citizenship in another country, I believe this is Ashcroft’s take on it. We (at the SDMB) do not have any real evidence either way to know if this guy gave up his citizenship. It is in the courts and the courts will decide a reasonable course of action. ---
**Author:** ![peasea](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/bc79bd/32.png) [@peasea](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/peasea)\ **Post date:** [August 15, 2002, 11:57am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/holy-fucking-shit-ashcroft-is-a-loon/123955/33 "2002-08-15T11:57:43Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Cheesesteak \* > **It is possible to give up your citizenship in preference to citizenship in another country, I believe this is Ashcroft’s take on it.** I didn’t realize the DOJ has ever denied that Hamdi is a U.S. citizen. Their main point seems to be that they simply can do whatever they want in this time of War, and the judicial branch can kiss their collective asses. ---
**Author:** ![London\_Calling](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/49beb7/32.png) [@London\_Calling](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/London_Calling)\ **Post date:** [August 15, 2002, 12:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/holy-fucking-shit-ashcroft-is-a-loon/123955/34 "2002-08-15T12:00:30Z")
I don’t quite understand the assumption here. It’s okay to detain this guy in a military brig indefinitely, without recourse to counsel and without evidence as long as he’s not American ? I guess the other thing is that while the OP invokes Godwins Law, the Nazis were about a whole lot more than concentration camps. Indeed, they began in the early 30’s by limiting rights of some members of society. That’s not to say Ashcroft is a Nazi or that he intends carrying on down that road, but he is fundamentally undermining the Constitutional rights of some national as well as non-nationals (in comparison with the majority) at the behest of arbitrarily enforced Executive Orders. Even though a comparison between Ashcroft and the Nazi Party _agenda_ of, say, 1934 is wholly unreasonable, I’m not as sure – in strictly legal, stripping-away-rights-of some-individuals terms – he’s entirely removed. However, I await enlightenment: The OP’s a long way from how I’d choose to phrase the questions but, nonetheless, they are being asked (well, I _think_ they are): How do Ashcroft’s actions compare with those of a Nazi Party _lawyer_ circa 1934 (fascitous responses anticipated) ? How far down this road does a society travel befoe saying; Enough is enough, the law is wrong ? ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [August 15, 2002, 12:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/holy-fucking-shit-ashcroft-is-a-loon/123955/35 "2002-08-15T12:26:31Z")
I again note that, contrary to the OP’s linked article’s inference, the Justice Department has not simply refused to follow a judge’s order. This, if true, would be extremely dangerous - akin to Jackson’s famous “John Marshall has made his decision; now let him enforce it,” comment. When a party is aggrieved by the ruling of a trial court, the law provides them an option to appeal. In this case, the appeal was heard by the Fourth U.S. Circuit Court. In _Hamdi v. Rumsfeld_, No. 02-6895 (12 July 2002), the appellate court finds that Judge Doumar’s decision was errorneous, and that under the law, the executive branch is permitted to designate citizens as enemy combatants. > [@](#): > > … Articles I and II prominently assign to Congress and the President the shared responsibility for military affairs. See U.S. Const. art. I, § 8; art. II, § 2. In accordance with this constitutional text, the Supreme Court has shown great deference to the political branches when called upon to decide cases implicating sensitive matters of foreign policy, national security, or military affairs. See, e.g., _Dames & Moore v. Regan_, 453 U.S. 654, 660-61 (1981); _Curtiss-Wright_, 299 U.S. at 319-20; _United States v. The Three Friends_, 166 U.S. 1, 63 (1897); _Stewart v. Kahn_, 78 U.S. 493, 506 (1870); _The Prize Cases_, 67 U.S. (2 Black) 635, 670 (1862). > > This deference extends to military designations of individuals as enemy combatants in times of active hostilities, as well as to their detention after capture on the field of battle. The authority to capture those who take up arms against America belongs to the Commander in Chief under Article II, Section 2. As far back as the Civil War, the Supreme Court deferred to the President’s determination that those in rebellion had the status of belligerents. See _The Prize Cases_, 67 U.S. (2 Black) at 670. And in World War II, the Court stated in no uncertain terms that the President’s wartime detention decisions are to be accorded great deference from the courts. _Ex parte Quirin_, 317 U.S. 1, 25 (1942). It was inattention to these cardinal principles of constitutional text and practice that led to the errors below. Now, unless there are some Supreme Court Justices lurking about here, your opinion is limited to what the Constitution _should_ mean. The judges of the Fourth Circuit, for now, have the authority to determine what the Constitution DOES mean, subject to the review of the Supreme Court. **chula** is happy to announce that any court ruling thusly is wrong. Where did you go to law school, chula, and which President appointed you to a federal bench? I have grave concerns about the wisdom of the policies mentioned above. But the problem is not with Ashcroft, who is acting legally; the onus is on Congress to pass legislation limiting the executive power in these situations. Finally, chula cavalilarly announces that “Nazi” is commonly used to mean any “an uptight person or a jerk, especially a right-wing jerk”. I’m not so sure I agree that this is common usage. The dictionary lists, as a second meaning, “…one who resembles a German Nazi.” To compare legal actions taken by the Attorney General, and upheld by federal circuit judges, to the actions of a political party responsible for the murders of millions, is not acceptable hyperbole. You want to discuss the merits of the case? Fine. But I stand by my own hyperbole as regards the use of the word Nazi. The Nazi effort should always stand for the pure, unadulterated evil it was, and not be diluted by such fatuous comparisons. - Rick ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [August 15, 2002, 12:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/holy-fucking-shit-ashcroft-is-a-loon/123955/36 "2002-08-15T12:29:33Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by peasea \* > \*\*I didn’t realize the DOJ has ever denied that Hamdi is a U.S. citizen. Their main point seems to be that they simply can do whatever they want in this time of War, and the judicial branch can kiss their collective asses. \*\* peasea - what do you say about the fact that the Fourth Circuit agreed with them? Is the Fourth Circuit not a part of the judicial branch? Are you saying that the district court’s ruling is right, and the appellate court’s ruling legally incorrect? - Rick ---
**Author:** ![pldennison](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/9fc29f/32.png) [@pldennison](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/pldennison)\ **Post date:** [August 15, 2002, 12:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/holy-fucking-shit-ashcroft-is-a-loon/123955/37 "2002-08-15T12:37:58Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Broomstick \* > \*\*In fact, Ashcroft is committing treason by disregarding the Bill of Rights and the Constitution. HE should be sitting in a brig. > \*\* Not that I particularly support the actions of the Attorney General, but treason has a very specific legal definition – in fact, it is the only crime specifically defined by the Constitution – and this is not it. It may constitute egregious violations of civil rights, but it isn’t treason. And I’m right with **Bricker** on the casual use of the word “Nazi.” I’d let my father’s great-grandparents explain the distinctions to you, except they were executed in the 1930s because they were Jewish. ---
**Author:** ![peasea](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/bc79bd/32.png) [@peasea](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/peasea)\ **Post date:** [August 15, 2002, 1:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/holy-fucking-shit-ashcroft-is-a-loon/123955/38 "2002-08-15T13:21:35Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Bricker \* > \*\* > > peasea - what do you say about the fact that the Fourth Circuit agreed with them? Is the Fourth Circuit not a part of the judicial branch? Are you saying that the district court’s ruling is right, and the appellate court’s ruling legally incorrect?\*\* What I’m referring to here is the DOJ’s statement that the courts have no say in what the pres does, since it’s wartime. I can’t find this written down; heard it on NPR. If the Supreme Court upholds Doumar’s decision, and Ashcroft complies, my statement will be moot. But until then, I can’t see that Ashcroft has any interest in respecting constitutional rights or checks and balances. ---
**Author:** ![London\_Calling](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/49beb7/32.png) [@London\_Calling](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/London_Calling)\ **Post date:** [August 15, 2002, 1:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/holy-fucking-shit-ashcroft-is-a-loon/123955/39 "2002-08-15T13:29:45Z")
Getting back to the facts: As best I know, Ashcroft is relying on a ‘Separation of Powers’ defence _and_ on powers accruing to the president (established by precedent) once he/she has determined, unilaterally, that a ‘state of war’ exists (when is a ‘war’ (on drugs) not a ‘war’ (on terrorism) ? – when the president says and for as long as the president says…). Are these the two areas that Congress might look to if they were to address limiting or better defining the powers of Executive Orders ? ---
**Author:** ![Frank](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/3d9bf3/32.png) [@Frank](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Frank)\ **Post date:** [August 15, 2002, 1:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/holy-fucking-shit-ashcroft-is-a-loon/123955/40 "2002-08-15T13:33:32Z")
I recently looked into this due to discovering that I am eligible for Canadian citizenship along with U.S. Wanting to formalize my Canadian citizenship, but not wanting to lose US citizenship, I found a State Department website (which I will rediscover and link to if there is any demand for it). This states that the acceptance of citizenship of another country does not remove one’s U.S. citizenship. In fact, the presumption is that one wishes to maintain dual citizenship. Only if one renounces citizenship, as described above, does one lose it. I do not know if the presumptive U.S. citizens talked about in this thread ever renounced citizenship. If they did not, they are being held illegally. If the courts ever stop genuflecting to the executive branch, and base their decisions on law, the prisoners will either be charged or released. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/holy-fucking-shit-ashcroft-is-a-loon/123955.md?page=1) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/holy-fucking-shit-ashcroft-is-a-loon/123955.md?page=3)