I’m in the camp that never liked Ashcroft’s appointment in the first place, so no debate here. I just wanted to say, to Monster104, that this is one of the best and most concise descriptions as to why. Well said.
Well, he ain’t my Governments legal rep, I’m not an expert on the whole history of this particular area and my views pretty much reflect a mainstream Euro perspective but here’s a couple of Devils Advocate points not yet mentioned:
1 – Isn’t he acting as any good career lawyer/politician should do: i.e. in the best interests of those who he serves (the president). Whether acting under direct instruction or whether told to explore particular avenue’s, surely Ashcroft reflects the agenda of his boss - aren’t folks in this thread shooting the messenger ?
2 – The focus is often on Executive Orders and how they have impinged on Constitutional rights/human rights/civil liberties. Again, in this area his powers derive from Executive Orders issued by Bush (and resulting from the proclamation of a ‘national emergency’.
Question: Is the problem Ashcroft or a system of Government that permits the Executive to assume extraordinary powers in arbitrarily and unilaterally determined circumstances ?
Supplemental…and not a little interesting.
Question: How many Executive Orders did Clinton issue ?
Answer: I’m not sure everyone will believe it
Ashcroft does what he does, presumably, within the approval, if not under the advisement of his boss and within the confines of permissible Constitutional restraints – it’s all legal until the Courts decide otherwise or Congress rescind the Executive Orders.
True, it’s not written in the Constitution. However, there are court decisions and precedents.
A case that got discussed around a year ago involved some German sailors IIRC, who were captured in or near the US during WW II. I’m vague on the details, but they received special treatment – maybe it was a trial by military tribunal.
Another example: it’s long been a practice that a leader can declare a temporary state of emergency and suspend normal laws, although that’s not mentioned in the Constitution AFAIK.
The Jose Padilla case seems to be the most blatant disregard of civil rights and procedure in the “war on terrorism.”
For those who are unaware, Mr. Padilla was arrested on May 8, 2002 at Chicago O’Hare airport, upon returning from Lahore, Pakistan, where the DoJ claimed he was on a trip to learn how to make a dirty bomb.
Mr. Padilla was initially arrested and processed by the Anti-Terrorist division of the US Attorney General Office in New York City.
Padilla was then transferred to DoD custody on or around 11 June, 2002, and classified as an ‘enemy combatant.’ He was then moved to a military brig in Charleston, SC.
What the government has been circumspect in reporting is that this transfer occurred only AFTER the DoJ was unable to get a grand jury indictment against Mr. Padilla, a process in which the evidentiary burden on the prosecution is extremely low.
The DoD, DoJ, and State Department justified his transfer as “being detained under the laws of war as an enemy combatant” and with Supreme Court precedence under ex Parte Quinn (1942), and confirmed that Mr. Padilla has no current legal representation.
This, however, fails to indicate why, if that is the case, the DoJ had initial jurisdiction, and Mr. Padilla was transferred only after a failed grand jury indictment.
Full text of the DoD, DoJ, State Department briefing is at:
“Wolfowitz Says DoD Holds Terrorist Plotter”
I’d say this is a pretty good example of an extreme encroachment on civil rights, obviously orchestrated with the accord of the Attorney General.
- Bjorn240
I am not much of a debater, but the most obvious place to go for research on Ashcroft’s actions is www.aclu.org.
december-weren’t those examples you listed later found to be UNCONSTITUTIONAL???
Ashcroft is ultimately only a Bush appointee who serves at the pleasure of the President. There is no reason to believe Bush has any serious disagreement with anything Ashcroft has done, is there? Let’s not pretend, like some Reagan-worshipers did and do, that everything bad that happens during a presidency is his staff’s fault, not his. If you don’t like things that the Bush administration is doing, blame Bush.
BTW, classy move there, Sam.
Yes. I think they were found unconstitutional at a lower court level, and the rulings were suspended to allow appellate court review.
As I see it, as a public servant he serves the American people. Or misserves them, as the case may be. While the criminal justice system may be adversarial by design, I don’t think that the DoJ should adopt the same sort of approach toward civil liberties. And just because he can get something past the courts doesn’t mean that he should (especially with a Supreme Court that’s not exactly packed with ACLU members).
I’m still not sure that he’s worse than Janet Reno, but he’s no damn good as far as I’m concerned.
Sam Stone, I at first “supported” John Ashcroft’s nomination (in the sense that he promised not to let his religious convictions get in the way of upholding the laws of the land) to Attorney General. I’m very uneasy about his performance so far. I felt he first overstepped his bounds when he ordered state’s attorneys general in Oregon to go after doctors who assisted terminally ill clients in hastening their deaths–even though Oregon voters passed a euthanasia bill a few years ago. The fact that he covered up a naked statue also appears to show he’s letting his religious biases to show through. The treatment that Jose Padilla is receiving bothers me a little. There’s a big difference between being suspected of knocking over a liquor store and being a terrorist researching targets. I don’t think I’ll vote for George Bush again if that means John Ashcroft gets to remain as Attorney General.
—Another example: it’s long been a practice that a leader can declare a temporary state of emergency and suspend normal laws, although that’s not mentioned in the Constitution AFAIK.—
Let’s call it what it is though: a violation of the Constitution. From time to time, U.S. government has seen fit to take it upon itself to violate the social contract (which it has no special legitimacy to unilaterally choose to do), usually in the name of some higher purpose. Lincoln’s purpose, for instance, was simply the rationale that it was kind of stupid to follow the Constitution if it meant that the nation would fall apart, thus nullifying the Constitution anyway. Others seem to have the same rationale (such as the Cold War abuses).
Of course, as I mentioned, it’s not clear why the duly elected government should be the one to take it upon itself to make this sort of decision: it seems to be simply because they have the most power, so they decide that they are the ones to weild it, despite this usage of it being totally illegitimate.
But the most important factor, that the accused is only that, accused, is exactly the same. An accused person may be innocent, and MUST be given opportunity to argue their case. This is true if a person is accused of ripping the tag off a mattress, or nuking Washington DC.
Remember, innocent people are accused all the time, people as innocent as you or I. Do you want only chance to determine that you have the opportunity to defend yourself, the chance that what you are accused of is not terrorism? Or do you want the opportunity to defend ALL types of false charges?
Ashcroft’s fundamental Christianity is a double-edged sword. On the one hand, I have no doubt that he sees himself as a very moral man, and probably acts that way in his personal life. People who know him personally almost universally like him. He’d make a fine pastor or community leader.
But I grew up in the fundamentalist Christian world (though never following it past the age of 12), and there is one characteristic of most fundamentalists that I think is ill-suited to being in a position like Attorney-General: moral certitude. To know, without the tiniest shred of doubts, that your cause is right and your morals are correct.
John Ashcroft ‘knows’, deep in the fiber of his being, that abortion is wrong. He sees it as a sin against God and man. So, even though he may try to act within the constitution, his moral certitude is going to cause him to err on the side of what he believes.
I don’t want a crusader in such a position of power. They are the kind of people who decide that sometimes you have to break a few eggs to make an omelette. I want a person with doubts. I want a person who lies awake at nights, agonizing over whether that guy they arrested is innocent and they have made a grievous error.
I suspect John Ashcroft sleeps like a baby.
Elvis: Thanks.
Doesn’t Ashcroft have a number of detractors within the administration? I seem to recall after the Padilla announcement that there were quotes in the press (un-named, I think) that some folks at the State Department and maybe the DoD thought Ashcroft was trying to show off, especially after it turned out the case against the accused was rather thin. The argument being that Ashcroft wants to be in the headlines and that his 2000 presidential campaign didn’t end after he dropped out. Then again, it’s not like departmental rivalries are anything new.
I can’t help but think of what Russ Feingold said after he voted to approve him (I’ll paraphrase): “What makes you think the next guy would be any better?” In retrospect, it looks like there would be a lot to make you think he would be.
In the last analysis Ashcroft is President Bush’s baby. We can safely think that every thing the Dept of Justice has done has the President’s approval. If there is a criticism of Ashcroft it is that he is more than willing to take advantage of the alarmist attitude that seems to be prevalent in the federal government ever since Sept 11, 2001, not that he wasn’t doing some pretty goofie stuff before that, for example, the thing with the drape in the DoJ building lobby, and the prayer sessions. Whether the whole restricting civil freedoms to gain security thing can be pinned of Ashcroft is another matter. He certainly has not been arguing against any of the restriction, at any rate. Clearly the guy was put in as a sop to the Religious Right–but clearly the appointment of the AG for political purposes is not a new idea.
For what it is worth there was an item in today’s newspaper that claimed to be an outline of repressive measures adopted by the federal government which if not violative of the generally accepted civil liberties, represent troubling initiatives. I can’t seem to get a citation on the article, but it is by David Kravets, an AP correspondent, and includes a side bar to this effect:
Since 9/11 the federal government has sought to change Americans’ legal rights through the “Hysterical Reaction to the WTC Act” (my phrasing, not Mr. Kravets’) or by administrative fiat in at least these particulars:
Authorizing government “monitoring” of religious and political institutions.
Closing immigration hearings, holding people without charges and encouraging not disclosure of government records.
Authorizing prosecution of librarians and others for disclosing that they have been subpoenaed.
Authorized eavesdropping on consultations between attorney and client.
Authorized denial of counsel in “terror related” arrests and prosecutions.
Authorize search and seizure without probable cause in “terror related” cases.
Authorized holding prisoner with out right to speedy trial in "terror related"cases.
Jailing of suspects without charges and trial without confrontation of witnesses.
Just how accurate all that may be, I don’t know, but it looks like a pretty complete laundry list.
Incidentally, the Constitutional authorization for the suspension of the writ of habeas corpus is when required buy the public safety in times of rebellion or invasion. The mere existence of a state of war by formal action of Congress or not does not appear to trigger the suspension of the Great Writ, no matter how expedient that my be to promote some expansive concept of the needs of public safety.
Unfortunately, I’m not at all sure that’s how Ashcroft himself, or the man who appointed him, quite see his position.
Or at least as well as Oliver Cromwell.
I agree with your scary assessment.
There is some truth to each of these charges, but they need to be put in context. AFAIK each was used or intended to be used on a very small group, maybe just one or a few dozen. Working from memory, I will expand a bit on these particulars.
<<Authorizing government “monitoring” of religious and political institutions.>>
As I understnad it, it’s the monitoring of the suspect, not the monitoring of the institution. Under the new rules, if a suspect is being secretly followed anyhow, he can now be followed if he goes into a religious institution. The old rule prohibited doing so.
<<Closing immigration hearings,>>
I don’t know much about this.
<< holding people without charges >>
Yes, this came up in a some cases.
<<and encouraging not disclosure of government records.>>
Not sure what this means. It sounds OK to me, given the terror threat.
<<Authorizing prosecution of librarians and others for disclosing that they have been subpoenaed.>>
I hadn’t heard about this.
<<Authorized eavesdropping on consultations between attorney and client. >>
This was sought (and IIRC not granted) because a specific lawyer was concspiring with her imprisoned client, a terrorist leader. She was passing on messages that allowed him to lead terrorist activities from jail. She was charged. I have forgotten her name.
<<Authorized denial of counsel in “terror related” arrests and prosecutions. >>
I know that they have restricted counsel to people who they are confident won’t pass on secret info. There’s also a question about whether someone held, but not being tried, has a constitutional right to counsel
<<Athorize search and seizure without probable cause in “terror related” cases. >>
I know nothing about this.
<<Authorized holding prisoner with out right to speedy trial in "terror related"cases. >>
This was the accusation regarding the 500 or so people who were being held early on. There is some truth to itk bu it has been exaggerated. Most of them were not citizens or and/or had committed a crime such as visa violation.
<<Jailing of suspects without charges and trial without confrontation of witnesses.>>
Yes, this has probably happenened in some cases. BTW, how does this differ from the point above or from “holding people without charges,” which is third on th list?
Ooops, just noticed my early morning cut and paste didn’t go quite so well: The first quote in my last post belongs to waterj2 and not Sam Stone. Apologies !
Yeah… he got taken out to the woodshed after that “dirty bomb” speech in Moscow. It was unapproved by the White House. I’ll give the Bush White House credit for this much, they keep their underlings under control. Any “Ashcroft” policies are in reality screened by Bush. He does not operate in a vaccum.
Reno, in contrast, was out of control. Clinton could not expend the political capital to dump her between terms.
Off-topic, I heard today that the WH and/or Colin Powell had denied reports that he would “retire” after Bush’s first term (assuming he is elected to a second). Yeah, sure he won’t retrire, hehe.
Who knows more about Powell’s plans? Time Magazine or Powell himself?