# John Ashcroft is a Bad Attorney General **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [August 31, 2002, 11:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/john-ashcroft-is-a-bad-attorney-general/126494 "2002-08-31T23:32:42Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 4
**Author:** ![Squink](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/b5e925/32.png) [@Squink](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Squink)\ **Post date:** [September 3, 2002, 11:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/john-ashcroft-is-a-bad-attorney-general/126494/61 "2002-09-03T23:18:43Z")
“This is a hijack, but what weeds did she figuratively pull?” You stated it yourself: “Janet Reno took responsibility for the Waco horor”, and subsequently worked to ensure that there were no further such incidents. With Ashcroft we get wild tales of madmen with atom bombs. ---
**Author:** ![Revtim](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/revtim/32/1042_2.png) [@Revtim](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Revtim)\ **Post date:** [September 3, 2002, 11:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/john-ashcroft-is-a-bad-attorney-general/126494/62 "2002-09-03T23:22:31Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by december \* > **They weren’t _The Branch Davidians_. They were _human beings._ At least 86 of them died horribly by being incinerated. A few of them had committed serious crimes. Most were innocent of any crime. Many were women, children and infants. Quite a few were minorities.** 1)I never said they weren’t human, and specifically said they didn’t deserve to die. 2)WTF does the fact that some were minorites have to do with anything? > [@](#): > > \*\* > Regardless of who started the fire, the fact remains that the FBI had no plan at all to rescue the innocent people. No doubt the Branch Davidian leaders deserve enormous blame, but the FBI deserves some blame too. They should have been protecting the innocnet, but they made no effort at all to do so.\*\* I’m not sure what the FBI could have done to rescue the innocents. What do you think they should have done? > [@](#): > > \*\*She didn’t show much respect for civil liberties when her people captured the dangerous Elian Gonzalez at gunpoint!:eek: \*\* Kidnapping is a civil liberty? ---
**Author:** ![andros](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/e480ec/32.png) [@andros](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/andros)\ **Post date:** [September 3, 2002, 11:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/john-ashcroft-is-a-bad-attorney-general/126494/63 "2002-09-03T23:30:45Z")
> [@](#): > > Kidnapping is a civil liberty? Only when you’re kidnapping from Commies. ---
**Author:** ![december](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/838e76/32.png) [@december](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/december)\ **Post date:** [September 3, 2002, 11:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/john-ashcroft-is-a-bad-attorney-general/126494/64 "2002-09-03T23:33:29Z")
\<\\> I’m no expert, so I cannot describe a specific plan. However, they should not have not attacked unless they had a plan to protect the innocents. When they learned from their electronics that a fire was a possibility, they should have had a plan to protect the innocent people inside the compound. They ought to have regarded the innocnet people as hostages. It seems clear that the FBI attitude was that they were an undifferentiated group of Branch Davidians, and they were guilty as a group. \<\\> elian We never found out whether this was kidnapping, because he was taken at gunpoint before the case could go to court. The right to have one’s day in court is a civil liberty. ---
**Author:** ![wring](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/838e76/32.png) [@wring](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/wring)\ **Post date:** [September 3, 2002, 11:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/john-ashcroft-is-a-bad-attorney-general/126494/65 "2002-09-03T23:42:57Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by december \* > \*\*elian > We never found out whether this was kidnapping, because he was taken at gunpoint before the case could go to court. The right to have one’s day in court is a civil liberty. \*\* Hmm. Coulda sworn that the case **did** go to court, and it was determined that Elian’s correct guardian was his father, who wanted him back. The cousins failed to turn him over to said guardian. ---
**Author:** ![Revtim](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/revtim/32/1042_2.png) [@Revtim](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Revtim)\ **Post date:** [September 3, 2002, 11:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/john-ashcroft-is-a-bad-attorney-general/126494/66 "2002-09-03T23:48:11Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by december \*It seems clear that the FBI attitude was that they were an undifferentiated group of Branch Davidians, and they were guilty as a group. Unless you can describe how they should have done something differently, I’m not sure they did anything wrong. You yourself say “I’m no expert, so I cannot describe a specific plan”, but somehow you are sure there was a better way? Please explain how you come to this conclusion, as a self-confessed non-expert… > [@](#): > > \<\\> > elian > We never found out whether this was kidnapping, because he was taken at gunpoint before the case could go to court. The right to have one’s day in court is a civil liberty. \*\* If they were imprisoned without trial, then they would have been denied a civil liberty. The Miami relatives are not imprisoned, and are as free as (presumably) you and I. Why would they want a trial? They committed a crime and got away with it. They were denied NO civil liberties, and SHOULD have been brought up on kidnapping charges IMHO. ---
**Author:** ![december](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/838e76/32.png) [@december](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/december)\ **Post date:** [September 4, 2002, 5:21am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/john-ashcroft-is-a-bad-attorney-general/126494/67 "2002-09-04T05:21:13Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Revtim \* > Unless you can describe how they should have done something differently [the FBI at Waco], I’m not sure they did anything wrong. You yourself say “I’m no expert, so I cannot describe a specific plan”, but somehow you are sure there was a better way? Please explain how you come to this conclusion, as a self-confessed non-expert… If I only posted when I was an expert, I’d have to wait for the rare thread about mathematics and insurance. Here are two things they did wrong IMHO 1. There was no urgent need to mount an attack. The FBI could have simply waited for food and water to run out. The only reason to attack was to protect the innocent people inside the building. But there was no plan to protect those people. This doesn’t make sense. 2. In particular, they had electronic eavesdropping that predicted the fire. Yet, the FBI had no plans to try to put out the fire. > [@](#): > > If they were imprisoned without trial, then they would have been denied a civil liberty. The Miami relatives are not imprisoned, and are as free as (presumably) you and I. I meant Elian was deprived of a trial. He is not as free as you and I. Ultimately, there was a strong case to return Elian to Cuba, although there might have been points on the other side. Note that Elian’s father never testified under oath. There was no need for the Justice Department to get involved to the degree that they did. They could have let Elian’s father sue in US Court and let the courts decide. It seemed to me that the US was going to great pains to help Castro. E.g., making that federal complex available to the Cuban delegation was totally optional. The armed attack that snatched Elian seemed to be a part of this effort. Maybe the US was getting some quid pro quo from Cuba. **wring** my memory is that the case you refer to was under appeal or there was a new case. Either way, IIRC a possible court hearing was pending when the INS mounted their attack. ---
**Author:** ![Reeder](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/c6cbf5/32.png) [@Reeder](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Reeder)\ **Post date:** [September 4, 2002, 11:32am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/john-ashcroft-is-a-bad-attorney-general/126494/68 "2002-09-04T11:32:14Z")
> [@](#): > > 1. In particular, they had electronic eavesdropping that predicted the fire. Yet, the FBI had no plans to try to put out the fire. Cite please? It seems to me that if the FBI had that there would be no debate as to what actually started the fire. ---
**Author:** ![Squink](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/b5e925/32.png) [@Squink](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Squink)\ **Post date:** [September 4, 2002, 12:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/john-ashcroft-is-a-bad-attorney-general/126494/69 "2002-09-04T12:08:39Z")
Lest december’s spirited defense of the rights of kidnappers and armed religious fanatics detract from a reasoned evaluation of the _current_ attorney general, we have this assessment from Steven Hatfill: > [@](#): > > “My life has been completely and utterly destroyed by (Attorney General) John Ashcroft and the FBI,” Hatfill said. “I do not understand why they are doing this to me. My professional reputation is in tatters. All I have left are my savings and they will be exhausted soon because of my legal bills.” -[Former Anthrax Researcher Loses Job](http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&ncid=533&e=6&cid=533&u=/ap/20020904/ap_on_go_ca_st_pe/anthrax_hatfill) John Ashcroft, Scourge of the Innocent, has got kind of a nice conservative sound to it, no ? ---
**Author:** ![december](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/838e76/32.png) [@december](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/december)\ **Post date:** [September 4, 2002, 1:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/john-ashcroft-is-a-bad-attorney-general/126494/70 "2002-09-04T13:16:54Z")
\*\* Squink \*\* – I totally agree with you that the FBI has mistreatment Hatfill, and that Ashcroft (and Bush) deserve blame for permitting to go on. ---
**Author:** ![december](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/838e76/32.png) [@december](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/december)\ **Post date:** [September 4, 2002, 1:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/john-ashcroft-is-a-bad-attorney-general/126494/71 "2002-09-04T13:26:53Z")
**Reeder** , at one point there was a controversy over whether the Branch Davidians started the fire or whether it was an accident, resulting from a combination of fuel, wind flowing through the damaged building, and sparks from weapons fired at the building. The FBI presented pretty convincing evidence that they were innocent of accidentally starting the fire, by presenting electronic eavesdroppng showing that the BD leaders were preparing for a fire. I don’t have a handy cite for this. There are lots of hits on google, such as [http://www.freerepublic.com/forum/a388175d5194e.htm](http://www.freerepublic.com/forum/a388175d5194e.htm) You could look up various versions. ---
**Author:** ![stofsky](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/dfb087/32.png) [@stofsky](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/stofsky)\ **Post date:** [September 4, 2002, 1:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/john-ashcroft-is-a-bad-attorney-general/126494/72 "2002-09-04T13:43:28Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by december \* > \*\*If I only posted when I was an expert, I’d have to wait for the rare thread about mathematics and insurance. \*\* Out of the mouths of babes… ---
**Author:** ![Revtim](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/revtim/32/1042_2.png) [@Revtim](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Revtim)\ **Post date:** [September 4, 2002, 2:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/john-ashcroft-is-a-bad-attorney-general/126494/73 "2002-09-04T14:03:34Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by december \* > \*\*I meant Elian was deprived of a trial. He is not as free as you and I. > \*\* If you mean a custody hearing, as had been pointed out there already was a hearing. Although I don’t see why one even needs a custody hearing to realize that a child’s living parent should have custody over cousins. I tell you what december, imagine your cousin taking one of your kids, and refusing to let him or her come back home to you. Do they deserve a custody hearing, or a kidnapping trial? ---
**Author:** ![The\_Ace\_of\_Swords](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/e495f1/32.png) [@The\_Ace\_of\_Swords](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_Ace_of_Swords)\ **Post date:** [September 4, 2002, 2:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/john-ashcroft-is-a-bad-attorney-general/126494/74 "2002-09-04T14:47:50Z")
December, your presence is requested in the [pit](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?s=&threadid=133932). ---
**Author:** ![Mtgman](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/b5a626/32.png) [@Mtgman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mtgman)\ **Post date:** [September 4, 2002, 2:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/john-ashcroft-is-a-bad-attorney-general/126494/75 "2002-09-04T14:56:09Z")
How is the US going to try a Cuban citizen? For what offense? Being the sole survivor of a raftload of refugees isn’t a crime. I think the right decision was made. The boy’s biological father has the right to have his son returned to him. He was essentially kidnapped by his mother. These types of crimes are not unprecedented. Typically the parent who kidnaps the child loses custody by default. Anything else is political window-dressing(“oh, but his life would be better here! Oh, they’re commies down there!”). Surely you didn’t think a child of that age, in his situation as a national focal point, had the objective reason to decide what was best for him for himself? The courts decided the Miami relatives did not have a ligitimate claim to custody rights and they deported him back to his NATIVE country. They sent him HOME. To his FATHER. WTF is wrong with that? I didn’t hear reports of anyone being killed by the agents who collected him from the resisting arms of his Miami relatives. In any case but one with the media’s eyes all over it those relatives would have been found as obstructing justice and hauled off to the pokey themselves. Anyway, back to Ashcroft. I always find it amusing when one member of a discussion makes up a number(in this case I’m referring to **sailor’s** “99.9% of the people in China never encounter the the fascist police either”) and some other participant takes it and runs with it. Such terrible falacies. **december** are you really trying to tell me that you believe Ashcroft’s policies/actions which restrict or infringe on civil liberties only affect 30-300 people? I would have sworn there were more people in Oregon than that. Their right to help determine the course of their own state’s legal system(through the use of their voting for laws they want passed or voting down laws they do not want passed), as defined by the “reserved powers” clause of the US Constitution, has been abridged. Ashcroft was simply WRONG in using his own interpretation of a Federal law, which was never intended for such use, to override the rights of the state. For this offense ALONE he should be run out of office. Let’s not get into bills or subsections of bills that he pushes for, like the horridly draconic and often-reincarnated SSSCA. He’s getting his way with more than the naked lady in the press room. Let’s not pretend his abuses of power and/or fuckups are irrelevant because some people pulled numbers out of thin air and came to nonsense conclusions like “So, the percentage whose rights have NOT been infringed amounts to 99.99999% to 99.9999%.” That is an example of the red herring fallacy that could make it into the textbooks. Enjoy, Steven ---
**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:** [September 5, 2002, 3:37am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/john-ashcroft-is-a-bad-attorney-general/126494/76 "2002-09-05T03:37:58Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by december \* > \*\*The FBI presented pretty convincing evidence that they were innocent of accidentally starting the fire, by presenting electronic eavesdroppng showing that the BD leaders were preparing for a fire. I don’t have a handy cite for this. There are lots of hits on google, such as [http://www.freerepublic.com/forum/a388175d5194e.htm](http://www.freerepublic.com/forum/a388175d5194e.htm) > You could look up various versions. \*\* FREE REPUBLIC??? Oh good lord! :smack: ---
**Author:** ![december](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/838e76/32.png) [@december](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/december)\ **Post date:** [September 5, 2002, 6:31am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/john-ashcroft-is-a-bad-attorney-general/126494/77 "2002-09-05T06:31:13Z")
There are several statements I would question in your post, **Mtgman** > [@](#): > > I think the right decision was made. I wasn’t addressing that point. My complaint is that the decision was made by means of an armed attack rather than an appellate court hearing. > [@](#): > > I didn’t hear reports of anyone being killed by the agents Fortunately not. There were several injuries, in particular to some news people who the agents attacked, perhaps in an effort to limit the news coverage. > [@](#): > > I always find it amusing when one member of a discussion makes up a number(in this case I’m referring to **sailor’s** “99.9% of the people in China never encounter the the fascist police either”) and some other participant takes it and runs with it. Maybe my point could have been clearer. Let’s try again. In effect, **sailor** was saying that the US was just as bad as some totalitarian country, because we had civil liberties abuses, too. I was disagreeing. My point was that they had a completely different frequency of such abuses. In other words, the difference in quantity is so great that it amounts to a difference in quality. > [@](#): > > **december** are you really trying to tell me that you believe Ashcroft’s policies/actions which restrict or infringe on civil liberties only affect 30-300 people? I would have sworn there were more people in Oregon than that. Their right to help determine the course of their own state’s legal system(through the use of their voting for laws they want passed or voting down laws they do not want passed), as defined by the “reserved powers” clause of the US Constitution, has been abridged. I didn’t like Ashcroft’s position vis-a-vis Oregon either, but you know we weren’t talking about that. BTW it’s nice to know that you are such a fan of states rights. Would I be right to assume that you therefore oppose Roe v. Wade, Social Security, and federal civil rights laws? 😉 ---
**Author:** ![Blalron](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/35a633/32.png) [@Blalron](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Blalron)\ **Post date:** [September 5, 2002, 6:54am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/john-ashcroft-is-a-bad-attorney-general/126494/78 "2002-09-05T06:54:24Z")
> [@](#): > > Would I be right to assume that you therefore oppose Roe v. Wade That’s individuals rights, not states rights. > [@](#): > > Social Security Yep. Those bastards take your money and give it to old people instead of storing your own money into an account to gather interest over the years like it should. But the 16th amendment does give the Feds the right to collect income taxes, so for now I’ll call it legit as it is constitutional. > [@](#): > > and federal civil rights laws Inasmuch as the 14th amendment prohibits States from abridging civil rights, the federal government has the authority to step in to enforce it. ---
**Author:** ![december](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/838e76/32.png) [@december](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/december)\ **Post date:** [September 5, 2002, 7:05am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/john-ashcroft-is-a-bad-attorney-general/126494/79 "2002-09-05T07:05:26Z")
\<\<[Roe v. Wade is] individuals rights, not states rights. \>\> Sure, because it affects the rights of individuals. Ashcroft’s unfortunate position in Oregon also affects the rights of individuals, so it’s also an individual rights issue. But both contradict what **Mtgman** advocated: _“Their right to help determine the course of their own state’s legal system(through the use of their voting for laws they want passed or voting down laws they do not want passed)”_ My point was to suggest that **Mtgman’s** degree of support for states rights may depend on whether he likes the outcome. ---
**Author:** ![Beagle](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/85f322/32.png) [@Beagle](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Beagle)\ **Post date:** [September 6, 2002, 4:40am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/john-ashcroft-is-a-bad-attorney-general/126494/80 "2002-09-06T04:40:17Z")
> [@](#): > > I don’t want to get too much off topic, but the Branch Davidians were innocent? Is it legal to resist arrest and hold stand-offs with the police and FBI in Texas? The rules of self-defense apply to everyone. The police have some latitude in using force to effectuate arrests, obviously. But, the rules of deadly force are pretty much the same. Someone who faces death or serious bodily injury can defend themselves. (There are retreat and castle doctrines, yadda, yadda.) In other words, state law varies, but being at home makes it more likely that the Davidians could defend themselves. In the context of an arrest, this means that the arresting officers must not inappropriately apply deadly force at the beginning of the encounter. Basically (very), if the ATF shot first the Davidians could defend themselves. The law and reality seriously diverge when dealing with the police and violence. The police tend to get a free pass while private citizens are held to a higher standard. But, the law is the law. Given the [vanishing front door and bulldozed crime scene](http://www.hoboes.com/html/FireBlade/Books/assault.shtml)\* one has to wonder what was up. I’ve never heard of bulldozing a crime scene, period, much less so soon after the crime. I’m not even talking about the use of chemical weapons tanks - that is a whole other issue. I mean, days after the fire, they bulldozed the crime scene. I have never heard one even attempted good reason for this, other than obstruction and evidence tampering that is. \*I know. You try to find any major media interested in this story once it became clear the FBI and ATF were [lying.](http://www.cato.org/dailys/09-08-99.html?FACTNet) [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/john-ashcroft-is-a-bad-attorney-general/126494.md?page=3) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/john-ashcroft-is-a-bad-attorney-general/126494.md?page=5)